Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYDS BOWMAKER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 27 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Cereals (Export Subsidies)

Mr.Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the names of three principal countries receiving cereals grown in the United Kingdom in 1982 on which export subsidies were paid, with the round tonnage and subsidy in each case, respectively.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): It is not possible to give figures for the 1982 crop yet, as exports from this crop are still in progress. There are also difficulties in establishing reliable figures.

Mr. Spearing: Is not that answer surprising, in view of the written answer that the Minister gave me on 21 July in which he set out the recipients of British surplus cereals —including Algeria with 11 million tonnes, Cuba with 10 million tonnes and Saudia Arabia with 12 million tonnes—who received a total of £80 million worth of grain? Is this not a bizarre state of affairs, and will the Minister confirm that that £80 million is, in EC accounts, receipts to the United Kingdom?

Mr.MacGregor: I am aware that I gave a written answer, but that was in relation to exports for 1982, and the hon. Gentleman is asking about United Kingdom cereals grown in 1982. On his second point, there are aspects of this that worry us. We feel chat the cost of exporting the Community's cereal surplus is excessive, and that is why we have welcomed the fact that in the last three price fixings the increase in intervention prices for

cereals has been below that for other products. We are in favour of measures to continue reducing the gap between Community and world prices, which will help to deal with this.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the countries that he mentioned, and some eastern European countries, are among the world's largest markets for grain and that, therefore, it is an inevitable part of the process that Community exports will to some extent, go to those countries. We should be against any proposals to sell grain on preferential terms to specific countries.

Mr. Marlow: If, as my hon. Friend says, he would like to bring Community cereal prices more into line with world prices, will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of discussing an increase in own resources until we are much closer to those prices than we are now?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that discussions will be taking place over the coming months on the post-Stuttgart situation and that part of the discussions will be on the common agricultural policy. We have not yet seen the Community proposals, but our attitude is in line with this approach.

Poultry Producers (Wheat Supplies)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that there will be sufficient United Kingdom grown wheat available to the United Kingdom poultry industry for the harvest year 1983–84 at prices which will enable fairly based competition with other European Community-based poultry producers.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Unless yields are unexpectedly low, there should be more than enough wheat to cover the needs of United Kingdom poultry producers and other users. On present indications, market prices for wheat will be lower in the United Kingdom than in other European Community countries in the early part of the season. This will give an advantage to our poultry industry.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is substantial anxiety in the poultry industry that last year's circumstances might recur in the coming year, in that more favourable prices for feed wheat in France led to exports from this country, leading to United Kingdom poultry producers having to pay higher prices than they would otherwise have had to? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to try to establish uniform interpretation of the differences between hard and soft wheats, especially by the French, because this is where the root of the problem lies?

Mr. Jopling: The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the United Kingdom cereals market is supported to the same extent as markets elsewhere in the Community and to prevent excessive exports from this country. This season, the answer is very much in the hands of the buyers, sellers and users of grain. We are likely to have low prices for wheat at the beginning of the season, and I hope that all those who use the grain will take advantage of these low prices to cover their needs later on.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister may want our cereals industry to operate on a competitive and fair basis, but will


he explain why French eggs are brought into Britain and sold at prices which must be below the cost of production both here and in France?

Mr.Jopling: It is difficult to make a case for saying that French eggs are dumped here. This year we have exported more eggs than we have imported.

Mr. Spence: On competition generally, will the Minister keep an eye on the other inputs that are available elsewhere in the Community and which are equally capable of distorting competition for our poultry industry, which is a highly productive and efficient industry?

Mr. Jopling: We shall continue to do all we can to make sure that the competitiveness of our poultry industry is not undermined by unfair practices in other parts of the Community.

Vermin Control

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice is offered by his Department on the control of vermin, particularly foxes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): When advising on the control of any agricultural pest, including foxes, and on damage prevention techniques, my Department recommends those methods that are most effective, economic and appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the higher than average incidence of stock losses in the north-west, caused above all by foxes, requires firm treatment? As the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is seeking to prevent hunting with dogs on all its tenanted land, does she not agree that that will make the control of such vermin increasingly difficult for farmers, to the long-term detriment of the consumer as well?

Mrs. Fenner: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the increased incidence of stock losses. I earnestly advise him that the occupiers concerned should seek urgent advice from their local Ministry office. I am advised that the action taken by the county council does not extend to persons practising essential agricultural pest control operations.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Minister agree that it is a known fact that more damage is done to crops by fox hunting than by the fox? On animal cruelty generally, should not the hon. Lady's Department consult the Home Office so as to bring up to date the Cruelty to Animals Act, which goes back to 1876?

Mrs. Fenner: It is the Government's view that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to hunt. We therefore have no plans for legislation to ban field sports. It is for individual landowners to decide whether to permit hunting on their property. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will know that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that hunting has been banned by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which owns about 7,000 or 8,000 acres in Leicestershire, and that as a result my constituents have had no alternative

but to keep the foxes down by much more cruel methods such as poisoning, gassing, snaring and trapping? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter, which is highly relevant, to see whether there is some way in which hunting can be restored?

Mrs. Fenner: The legality of hunting is a matter for the Home Office, but occupiers are free to decide whether co-operation with the local hunt would achieve effective pest control. It is for the occupiers to decide.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the hours of patient research into the control of vermin conducted in the House of Commons Library, and only occasionally elsewhere, by my predecessor, the former Member for Gainsborough, Sir Marcus Kimball.

Mrs. Fenner: His name is legion in this place.

Pig Farming

Mr. Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist the pig farming industry, specifically with regard to the cost of feed supplies.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with the feed incorporation proposals for pigs made by the European Commission.

Mr. Jopling: I shall continue to press for more restraint on cereal prices in the interests of the intensive livestock sector.
It is important to achieve a stable pattern of cereals marketing over the coming season, and I hope that users of feed grain will buy forward as far as possible to take advantage of current new crop prices, and to prevent excessive quantities going for export or into intervention.
The Commission's proposed cereals incorporation scheme is still under discussion.

Mr. Freeman: Will the Minister give us some hope that he will seek an amendment to the cereals regime so that crops sold into intervention immediately after the harvest are more readily available to the pig producing industry at prices that it can more readily afford?

Mr. Jopling: We have made representations to the Commission to find ways whereby the intervention system can work more smoothly and deal with shortages, when they occur. During the past two months we have had a number of discussions with the Commission to achieve that end.

Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister agree that the main aim of the Commission's proposals is not to help the pig and poultry industries, but to dispose of surplus cereals? Does he further agree that the conditions so far outlined in the scheme would put our producers at a distinct disadvantage in that they involve an increased uptake of cereals—Britain already uses a great deal of cereals in feed incorporation schemes — they will not help the smaller home mixer, and they are not coming in at the right time of the year? In fact, they are coming in at the wrong time of the year, when there will be an abundance of home harvested cereals.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a certain amount of disappointment about the incorporation scheme as proposed so far. As proposed, the


scheme is not as likely as we should wish to help the United Kingdom livestock producer. However, we shall be having further discussions, and we shall seek to angle the scheme more towards the needs of the livestock industry.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I remind him that in recent price fixings the Commission and the Council agreed that the increases in prices for the livestock sector had been higher than increases in the grain sector. That is right, and it is my stated policy to continue that progress in the future.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pig farming industry is suffering from bad marketing of its products? Will he help in the better promotion of British pork and bacon products?

Mr. Jopling: I have already expressed my support for Food from Britain, the exciting new organisation that was set up by my predecessor.I strongly support the opportunities which are already resulting from the charter bacon scheme, and I was delighted that the figures which appeared recently showed for the first time for a long time that consumption in this country of home-produced bacon exceeded that of Danish bacon. Recently, we have been using 46 per cent. of our own charter bacon and bacon from other home sources. This is a great step forward.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hopes raised by his predecessor's statement a few month ago about intervention grain being sold at prices which would assist the British pig producers have, as a result of backtracking, not by this Government but by the Commission, not been realised? Does he further agree that it is therefore necessary to keep up pressure on the Commission to sell grain held in intervention at below market prices, rather than at market prices, because if it is sold at market prices there is no obvious benefit to British pig producers?

Mr. Jopling: We have been trying to do exactly that. My hon. Friend is probably aware that I raised the matter at the very first meeting of the Council that I attended. I tried to press the Commission to stand by the promises that we thought we had obtained from it to release grain for the benefit of the British livestock sector.

Mr.Howard: Does my right hon. friend agree that substantial relief could be afforded to the United Kingdom pig industry by a ban on the importation of pigmeat from countries where Aujeszkys disease remains endemic? Will he consider the imposition of such a ban and will he show his readiness to use the Community's rules to benefit our industry in the same way as our partners in the Community have used them to benefit theirs?

Mr.Jopling: We are already making a great deal of progress in eliminating Aujeszkys disease from Britain's pig population and I am delighted with the extent of that progress. That scheme is moving along well. Britain is always jealous of the health of its livestock and if there are further steps to be taken to protect our pig population from this disease I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the pig industry is deeply disappointed by the failure of the incorporation scheme proposals? The remarks of his hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments disappointed his colleagues, the pig

industry and the Opposition. Can we not do better? Will the Minister press harder for an effective incorporation scheme?

Mr Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should consider the steps that we have already taken to help the pig industry. The National Farmers Union made representations to my predecessor. We have done many of the things that were asked for. We have introduced an aid for private storage scheme. We have increased the rate of aid payable under that scheme. On two occassions we increased the export refunds and we have given a lot of new money to the improvement of United Kingdom pigmeat processing plants. We have remitted veterinary charges on meat inspections and, as I have said, we have supported the charter bacon scheme. The position of the pig industry is not as bad as it was earlier. Prices are still marginally below what they were a year ago and I hope that we shall soon see an improvement in the pig industry's economic prosperity.

Agricultural Net Product

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to pursue the continued expansion of agricultural net product in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jopling: The Government aim to provide conditions in which our agriculture can make the maximum contribution to the national economy, while taking into account the interests of consumers and taxpayers.

Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of British farming output depends on the future common agricultural policy? In the forthcoming negotiations on the reform of the CAP, will he retain the objectives set by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) during the previous Labour Government to increase agricultural net output in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jopling: The Government are committed to tackling the problem of surpluses in the Community within the framework of the CAP, but it would be wrong for the Government to seek artificially to restrict efficient United Kingdom farm production, particularly as we are still less than self-sufficient in most temperate products.

Mr. Ron Davies: In view of the Minister's commitment to ensure the maintenance of production, will he express his disappointment at the Milk Marketing Board's decision to close the creamery at Newcastle Emlyn? Is he aware that the board's decision was taken without consultation with the local rural interests? Will he now make representations to the board to review its policy to close that creamery until further consultations with local interests have taken place?

Mr. Jopling: It is important that no Minister should interfere with the commercial decisions of organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board, which has been hugely successful over the years in looking after the interests of producers and consumers of British milk and milk products. I shall certainly look at the case that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to my attention, but I am not prepared to promise to take steps to interfere with the board's commercial decisions.

Mr. Fallon: Has my right hon. Friend read the reports today of the continued expansion of agricultural net production of the Italian olive oil industry? Will he take steps to ensure that we cease paying for it?

Mr. Jopling: There have been several discussions about the problems of the olive oil industry in the two meetings of the Agriculture Council that I have attended since the general election, particularly in view of the extension of the Community to include Spain and Portugal. Those matters are very much under review. I am well aware of the reports that appeared in the press this morning and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking into them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not United Kingdom agricultural production be much expanded if the Government were to implement the most recent recommendations under the EC's less favoured area directives? Is it not true that there are 68 parishes in the county of Cumbria, many of which fall within the constituencies of the Secretary of State and myself, which have been allocated that new status by the EC and yet the Government refuse to cough up the cash to ensure that farmers there get money which they deserve and which has been allocated to them in principle by the EC?

Mr. Jopling: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows a little more about Cumbria than he does about the rules of the Community. I think that he is talking about the proposal to extend the areas that qualify for grant in marginal areas beyond the hill areas. That proposal has not been endorsed by the Community. It is still under consideration and we are expecting to have a decision from the Commission and the Council by September or October. We shall then have to look at that scheme to see whether we can find the cash to implement it. I am not sure whether that will be available.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that while the British people are not averse to paying for proper support for an improvement in Britain's agricultural output, they are loth to spend the kind of money that they are asked for just to pile up surpluses in Europe? Will he assure the House that any measures that the CAP takes to deal with those surpluses will not be made by cutting back on subsidised food prices in Britain and that they will not discriminate unfairly against efficient British producers? Does he accept that the British people also strongly resent this kind of money being used to subsidise food abroad and to maintain food prices at home? To destroy about 300,000 tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables goes very much against the grain for the British people.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions. He seems to have forgotten that during the period in which the Labour Government were in office prices of agricultural produce rose a great deal faster than they have under my Government. Since the Government came to power prices agreed by the Community have risen more slowly than inflation. Nobody likes to see excessive food surpluses being created and even less to see them having to be destroyed or disposed of. The review of the CAP will attempt to deal with such problems.

Poultry and Egg Industries

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the state of the poultry and egg industries.

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of concern among producers about the present problems of the egg and poultry sectors, and have received a number of letters as well as one recent representation.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affecting those industries stems principally from a decline in consumption, especially in the egg industry? Will he consider asking the European Commission to set up an organisation dealing with eggs and poultry to regulate supply and demand on a Community basis?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that one of the problems stems from a decline in consumption. However, the other side of the coin is that last year's increase in the flocks has led to increased production. Thus, supply and demand are currently out of balance. However, I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's solution is likely to be right on a European-wide scale. The marketing of eggs and poultry is important, together with the use of egg products. As my hon. Friend will know, a sectoral scheme for the processing industry in England and Wales is currently in preparation, and it may well help to deal with the problem.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people involved in the production of both eggs and poultry in my constituency see French poultry, for example, being sold in Liverpool markets more cheaply than they can produce such poultry on their farms?

Mr. MacGregor: The problem is that producers in Britain have had to sell eggs at lower prices than they can produce them, as have French producers. Recently French egg prices have been hardening and as a result French imports have been falling off. However, it is important not to exaggerate the situation. So far during 1983 imports have been running at an average of 9,000 boxes per week. I am glad to say that exports from this country over the same period have averaged 25,000 boxes per week, and have gone mainly to other member states.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in recent weeks he has received representations from the chairman of the British Poultry Federation? Will he further confirm that the BPF has put forward proposals about cereal intervention and about changes that would greatly benefit our pig and poultry producers? What response will my hon. Friend make to those representations, which will prove most beneficial to our pig and poultry producers?

Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that representations have been received from the BPF on that, and on one or two other matters. We are considering the representations that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Marginal Land

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a decision has yet been taken on marginal land designation.

Mrs. Fenner: As my right hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned, although it has not yet come before the


Council of Ministers for decision, a proposal was issued by the European Commission early this month for redesignation of the United Kingdom's less favoured areas in accordance with the case formally submitted by the Government last December.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend accept that a considerable period of time has elapsed since the original review was established and that many marginal land farmers in this country are anxious to lave details of the scheme?

Mrs. Fenner: I accept my hon. Friend's comments, but designation of marginal land as less favoured is not just a simple formality. Extensive data on a wide range of economic and social factors were required, and the Commission needed time to consider them. Furthermore, it required additional information, which we then sent. In those circumstances, the rate of progress has been reasonable. We want to see that maintained through early agreement on the proposal that has now emerged.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have double standards about the operation of industries at the margin? On the one hand, Energy Ministers and the Prime Minister say that marginal pits must close, and on the other hand, all on the Treasury Bench say with one voice that to keep down the flow of imported food it is necessary to use all the marginal land we can get. Why do they operate such double standards?

Mrs. Fenner: The answer is that the marginal pits are in loss, while farming is in profit.

Mr. Mark Hughes: When the Minister has regretted that comment, will she accept the remarks made by her right hon. Friend the Minister at, I believe, the Great Yorkshire show, to the effect that if there is an increase of 40 per cent. in the designated areas, any additional funds from Europe can be triggered only by savings in the Ministry's overall budget?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that whatever my right hon. Friend said is accurate. However, I must stress again that the Government's commitment to see marginal land designated does not imply any commitment to additional assistance. Our first priority is to secure designation. The Government will then be in a position to decide where or when.

Wash Shell Fisheries

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to publish a report on the scientific work being carried out by his Department to quantify the resources and potential of the Wash shell fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The report to which my hon. Friend refers was produced as an internal document. I have, however, arranged for a summary to be prepared and am sending a copy to my hon. Friend and placing a further copy in the Library.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave problems facing shell fishermen in this country? Those problems stem, first, from the lack of attention paid by the Government and the Sea Fish Industry Authority to shellfish marketing, and, secondly, from a lack of EC price support for shell fisheries. In King 's Lynn, many

vessels that should be out at least five days a week catching pink shrimps are laid up, while the London markets are flooded with cheap imports from Norway, Holland and Russia. What does my hon. Friend plan to do about marketing?

Mr. MacGregor: I recommend that my hon. Friend should look carefully at the report, because there are interesting aspects to it vis a vis the production of shellfish in the Wash. The Sea Fish Industry Authority will no doubt be considering the need for a national policy on shellfish marketing. I accept that attention must be paid to marketing and to increasing the consumption of shellfish, as well as to the availability of supplies.

"Food from Britain"

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Tourist Authority about promoting the "Food from Britain" campaign.

Mr. Jopling: I have had no discussions with the British Tourist Authority, but the chairman of "Food from Britain," whose organisation is responsible for the better marketing of our agricultural and food products, is discussing with the British Tourist Authority ways in which the two organisations can work together to improve the quality and presentation of British foodstuffs.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend not think that added impetus would be given to those talks if he or one of his ministerial colleagues were to arrange to see the BTA? How close is the co-operation? For example,is the BTA to produce a marketing plan for "Food from Britain"? Is someone from the BTA to be put solely in charge or the plan? Is the Ministry in any way funding the BTA to carry out that work efficiently?

Mr. Jopling: At present I do not see the need to have talks with the BTA, but I should not hesitate to meet its representatives if I thought that would be helpful or was necessary. "Food from Britain" has been given a clear statutory duty to develop and improve the marketing of British agricultural and food produce. Both it and the BTA recognise that they have mutual areas of interest and can usefully collaborate. I am sure that that is best taken forward by the organisations themselves. We have provided substantial funds for "Food from Britain".I am sure that those involved are of a mind to allocate some of them for that purpose, and I am confident of a successful outcome to the discussions.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister not agree that it is quite remarkable that— [HoN.MEMBERS:"Reading".] I am not reading. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is remarkable that while all his Back Bench colleagues are asking for support help and for protection from imports, the rest of his Cabinet colleagues are conducting a campaign to increase imports of foreign coal? Should not the "Food from Britain" campaign become the "Fuel from Britain" campaign?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going slightly wide of the question.

Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure how "Food from Britain" or the British Tourist Authority can help with the problem of coal, but if during the holidays I can think of a useful way in which either might I shall see what I can do.

New Zealand Lamb

Mr. Gould: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the trend in the level of imports of New Zealand lamb into the United Kingdom over the past two years.

Mr. MacGregor: Imports of lamb from New Zealand have been declining for many years, but there are fluctuations from year to year and they rose by about 40 per cent. last year from their lowest ever level in 1981. This year's figures are expected to show a decline on 1982, but still be above the 1981 level.

Mr. Gould: Are we not entering a cycle that is familiar in other EC food regimes, whereby tax is imposed upon food so prices go up and consumption falls and everyone —the taxpayer, our traditional suppliers and consumers —suffers?

Mr. MacGregor: The problem this year is somewhat different. The problem is that the low price for fresh lamb is affecting New Zealand exporters'decisions. In this instance the hon. Gentleman's point does not arise.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do the Government wish to maintain, or progressively extinguish, imports of New Zealand lamb?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that the voluntary restraint agreements are to be reviewed in the coming months. We shall be anxious to guarantee continued access for adequate supplies of New Zealand lamb and to ensure that the Community honours its international trading obligations.

Fishing Quotas

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the European Community arrangements to ensure that fishing quotas are not exceeded by member countries.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend and I have already made clear to the House, and have emphasised to our European partners, that it is vital that all aspects of the common fisheries policy, including the observance of quotas, must be effectively enforced in all Community waters. The Commission inspectorate and the Community log book system are, in our view, the best means of raising standards of enforcement in other member states, and we have an assurance from the Community Fisheries Commissioner that the first inspectors will be in place by the end of September and the log books by November.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon.Friend for that reply. I am glad that the Government intend to ensure effective policing. Is my hon. Friend happy with the assurance about the log books coming into operation later this year?

Mr. MacGregor: We have got this far and obtained assurances as a result of pressure by us within the Council of Ministers. We have taken a useful step in the right direction—but only that. We shall continue to take a close interest and pursue the issue with vigour.

Soft Fruit Pulp

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of

soft fruit pulp by fruit and tonnage that has been imported into the United Kingdom from east European countries during each of the past four years.

Mrs. Fenner: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the area round Blairgowrie where I live is the principal raspberry area in the country? Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern over imports of soft fruits from eastern European countries? What steps will she take to ensure that Community preference is used to prevent that abuse?

Mrs. Fenner: We have no intention of letting a viable United Kingdom industry be destroyed by unfair competiton from eastern Europe. The licensing system was introduced in 1980 at the United Kingdom's insistence. We have continually urged the Commission to press the Polish authorities to keep prices at reasonable levels. My right hon. Friend the Minister raised the issue at the Council of Ministers last week and the Commission agreed to invoke safeguards if necessary.

Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety, not only in the raspberry areas of Scotland, but in the soft fruit growing areas of Kent and elsewhere? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend did what he could last week, but is not this a matter of great urgency, since the season is short and upon us?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the subject. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked the Commission to introduce licensing arrangements for another fruit last week. The Commission has not yet agreed to that, but we intend to pursue the issue.

Following is the information:


United Kingdom Imports of soft fruit pulp from eastern Europe: 1979–82


(tonnes)



1979
1980
1981
1982


Strawberry
876
7
843
1982


Raspberry
n/a
903
944
671


Blackcurrant
n/a
121
92
205

n/a = Not available.

Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

"Overseas Trade Statistics"

Forestry Commission Land

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement as to his policy on the sale of Forestry Commission land.

Mrs. Fenner: The Government's policy on the sale of land managed by the Forestry Commission was set out in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10 December 1980, as amplified in the debates during the passage of the Forestry Act 1981, which provided Forestry Ministers with the necessary powers for such sales.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she acknowledge the uncertainty among those affected? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the pace of sales? Is she satisfied with the method of sales, and has she considered that public auction might be the best method?

Mrs. Fenner: The sales are advertised, so that people know that they are happening. The aim of the sales is to reduce that part of the Commission's grant-in-aid that finances the forestry enterprise—no more and no less. I trust that, as that policy is continuing, people will not feel insecure or unsure.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister explain the basis of military co-operation between British forces and American forces in Central America? What recent request has the right hon. Lady had for help? Will she give an assurance that no British help or support will be given for any United States military intervention in any Central American country?

The Prime Minister: I know of no specific request for help. Our forces are, of course, in Belize. What happens in the rest of Central America is very important to Belize, which is a bastion of democracy in that area. It is important that it remains so. Also very important to us is what happens in the Caribbean, where we have at least one ship. Therefore, what the United States is doing to try to bring democracy to Central America—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will remember that elections were held in El Salvador, in the face of great intimidation. What the United States is trying to do is not only is the interests of Central America and the Caribbean but in Britain's interests.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider what she has just said? Has she made any request to the President of the United States in the last two days about America's intentions? The right hon. Lady talks about protecting people against aggression. Of course, we agree that Belize must be protected against any form of aggression, but have not the people of Nicaragua the same rights as the people of Belize? Have not the people of Nicaragua the same right to be protected against aggression as people in the Falkland Islands? Should not the British Government be seeking to uphold the United Nations charter in Central America, as elsewhere throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: I do not know who the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting should go to Nicaragua to protect the people there, but I have not a shadow of doubt that he, along with many other people, saw what happened to the Pope when he went to Nicaragua and tried to demonstrate his right to freedom of speech and to preach what he believed.
At his press conference President Reagan said that the planned United States naval and military exercise in Central America was to be seen in the context of the basic United States policy aims set out in the congressional address on 27 April. With which of those aims does the right hon. Gentleman disagree?

Mr. Foot: I agree with the aims, but I want to see that they are carried out. Does the right hon. Lady agree that Nicaragua has exactly the same right of protection against aggression as Belize? Will the Prime Minister uphold that right in the United Nations, otherwise she will be guilty of hypocrisy and, indeed, guilty of encouraging aggression?

The Prime Minister: The people of Nicaragua have a right to choose their own Government. That is exactly what the United States was trying to secure in El Salvador. That is the first of the four of President Reagan's policies. With which does the right hon. Gentleman disagree? I shall read them.
The first one is:
In response to decades of inequity and indifference we will support democracy, reform and human freedom.
Moreover, the United States, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is giving a large proportion of its aid to food, fertilisers and civil aid, which is a jolly sight more than the Communists in the area are doing.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady really trying to tell us that human rights are upheld in El Salvador? Can she not tell us that the British Government will exercise their duties at the United Nations to try to prevent aggression in Central America, as we have the right and duty to do everywhere else in the world?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and the British Government will try to secure self-determination and will uphold efforts to try to secure democracy throughout Central America. We have not the slightest shadow of doubt that, with the number of Cuban military advisers and the Communist efforts in Central America, if it gets Communism it will never get rid of it.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the visit to London this week of the vice-president of Sinn Fein, who spoke about peace and Socialism but advocates the use of a gun for the establishment of a Fascist republic in the whole of Ireland, does the Prime Minister agree that the visit is a propaganda exercise on behalf of Irish terrorists, who have slaughtered and tortured and have nothing for the people of Ulster, Protestant and Catholic, but death, grief and fear?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are completely against violence and those who pursue violence for political ends.

Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister made an important statement yesterday about the National Health Service. Can she explain why more than the million or more people who work in the National Health Service should not have the opportunity to negotiate a no-strike agreement in exchange for a fair method of assessing their pay, so that they do not fall behind? Does the Prime Minister agree that if this issue were put to a ballot, the vast majority of Health Service workers would support it and the Health Service would thereby not have the disruption from which it has suffered severely in the past few years?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are most anxious that there should not be industrial action in the National Health Service. I have been very very firm in condemning all such action.
With regard to the review body, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as far back as


November last year when we were discussing this review body, for which the nurses had asked some time ago, made this point:
The new review body recognises the special position of nurses and other professional groups who do not take industrial action and on whom we have relied heavily in the last six months … The fact that these groups do not take industrial action has now been adequately recognised." — [Official Report, 9 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 429.]
Should other unions come to us and say that they wish to have that type of agreement, we would of course consider it. No union other than the Royal College of Nursing has ever approached us, nor have other unions received the review body on nurses with acclamation.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, in addition to the Royal College of Nursing strongly supporting the Government's decision to set up this independent review body, with a no-strike clause, the overwhelming majority of patients in this country consider that, as we live in a civilised society, it is an absolute obscenity that many patients' lives should be put at risk because of possible industrial action in the Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we owe a great deal to the nurses who, at a time of great difficulty, when other groups in the National Health Service were taking industrial action, stayed at their posts, gave attention to the sick and often carried out as well the duties of others who were on strike. A review body is a proper recognition of the excellent standards that they uphold.

Mr. James Callaghan: Reverting to the Prime Minister's meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister this afternoon, may I ask her why the Government abstained on the United Nations vote last May calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops? Why has she changed British policy on this matter?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, talking about Cyprus. We abstained because we did not think that the vote on that resolution would help to further the matter. We are, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, trying to pursue the matter through the good offices of the secretary general of the United Nations with the points in mind that I set out in reply to a question the other day.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time she comes back to answer questions in the autumn the Labour party will have put up its fourth leader to face her? Can she assure the House that she will give him the same treatment as she has given the others?

The Prime Minister: I shall continue to give the facts, to be fair, and to be the essence of sweet reasonableness to the next three as I have with the last three.

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Prime Minister outline the manner in which Opposition Supply days will be allocated in this Parliament? Does she agree that it will be a scandal if the alliance does not get nearly half—

Mr. Skinner: Why should it? How can alliance Members have Supply days when they have sabbaticals?

Mr. Penhaligon: —or is the Prime Minister's determination to give the Labour party at least some credibility to be extended to maintaining the old fiddle?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, there are to be no changes in the method of allocating Supply days, which is done through the official Opposition. I do not remember that we had such scintillating debates when the alliance chose the subjects.

Sir Philip Holland: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find an occasion later today to impress upon her right hon. Friends with departmental duties that there is no close season for hunting the quango? Will she perhaps encourage them to renew the cull of that species in the near future?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the tremendous effort that my hon. Friend has made over the years to reduce the number of quangos. We should continue to do that and I hope that he will continue his splendid efforts to keep Ministers up to the task, as he has in the past.

Mr. Boyes: As this is the last Question Time before the recess, may I ask the right hon. Lady to take time to reflect today, during her busy schedule that, despite having a handsome majority, she has suffered three heavy defeats in the past few weeks, on the election of Mr. Speaker, hanging and on Member's pay? Is she aware that unless she stops her overpaid, overweight Chancellor attacking the poorest people in this land she will face perhaps the heaviest defeat that she has had since she came to office?

The Prime Minister: If that is the hon. Gentleman's last question before the recess, I need not worry.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her creation yesterday of an independent review body for nurses and other medical professionals' pay is widely welcomed? Will she extend the principle of generous pay agreements to those who enter into no-strike agreements beyond the NHS and into the caring services generally, in which action the vast majority of the country would support her?

The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, we have had no representations to this effect. One should remember that people should stay at their posts when they are dealing with essential services and not exact a large charge for doing so. The nurses have a particular professional standing in the way they carry out their duties. If we were to receive further representations we would consider them. I stress that, in any event, those who work in essential services should stay at their posts.

Mr. Coleman: During the course of her busy day will the right hon. Lady consult the Secretary of State for Wales concerning the closure of the creamery at Newcastle Emlyn owned by the Milk Marketing Board, a closure which will mean that about 250 people will lose their jobs


in that tiny township, and will also mean that Marks and Spencer will have to look elsewhere for its Leicester cheese?

The Prime Minister: I understand that that question arose earlier — I am not sure whether the hon.

Gentleman was in the House— when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replied to the effect that there would be no interference with the commercial decision of the board.

Anglo-Irish Forum

Mr. David Winnick: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the new Anglo-Irish forum Encounter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): I have been asked to reply. The joint studies of November 1981, put in hand by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments, recommended the establishment of an Anglo-Irish organisation to be called Encounter which should organise periodic conferences and seminars. As was announced yesterday after the meetings which my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary had with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland, we and the Irish Government have agreed to support the establishment of this body. We believe that it will have a useful role to play in fostering contacts between the peoples of the two countries.

Mr. Winnick: I am pleased that the Government's sulking with Dublin is over, and an improvement in relations between the two countries is to be welcomed. Is the Minister aware that, despite all the protests which will come from Unionist Members later on, it is only through contact and negotiation with Dublin that a solution will be found to the continuing tragedy of Northern Ireland? Does he agree that if we are effectively to undermine terrorism, precisely that sort of Anglo-Irish settlement is necessary to deal with Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitney: I understand and welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the concept, but I hope that he is not reading too much into the proposal, which is strictly to foster contact between the peoples of the two countries and has no constitutional implications.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: How do the contemptuous references of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland serve the cause, which he professes to support, of peace in the island of Ireland? Will my hon. Friend make it clear that in all our dealings in these matters, those dealings are between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the other sovereign state within these islands, the Republic? In other words, they are east-west and not north-south within the island of Ireland.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must be responsible for his own statements. I confirm the point my hon. Friend makes; dealings between the two Governments are precisely as he says.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Those on the Liberal Benches welcome the Minister's announcement, but I urge him to go further and to say that, in proceeding in this way, he takes a totally different view from that reported from the Democratic Unionist party, which says that it is wrong to edge Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland situation. Will he tell the House that it is clear that Northern Ireland is in an all-Ireland situation —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and that account should be taken of that.

Mr. Whitney: I cannot and will not be responsible for the statements of the Democratic Unionist party or any

other party in Northern Ireland. I repeat—the objectives of this organisation are very clear; they are not constitutional in any way but are further to promote contacts between the peoples of the two countries.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: As this body is to promote contact between the peoples of Ireland, will my hon. Friend say whether representatives of those people — Members of this House and the Dail — are envisaged to be members of that body?

Mr. Whitney: The composition of the organisation will be for the two chairmen. I cannot comment further on that at this stage.

Mr. Reg Freeson: While accepting that the proposed forum will not have a constitutional significance, will it be possible for discussions within the forum to encompass exchanges of view about the future relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Whitney: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to read much more into this body than is proposed. I repeat — it is an organisation which will help to contribute to the improvement of relations between the peoples of the two countries.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while co-operation between sovereign states at national level is to be welcomed, any institution which enables one party to interfere in the internal affairs of part of another will be strongly resisted in this House?

Mr. Whitney: That is well recognised by the Government. There can be no question of this body giving rise to, or causing the danger of, any interference of the sort that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Did the Minister notice the speech on Monday night in Birmingham by the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Valery, that the Irish Government would not be found wanting in energy, dedication and generosity in the quest for a united Ireland? He went on to say that London must play its part. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to go on record as saying — whatever ritual genuflections he is bound to make about there being no constitutional implications involved — that London is not prepared to match any such initiatives by Dublin?

Mr. Whitney: Again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to take my announcement about this organisation far beyond the implications which it will bear. There are no constitutional implications in the creation of this body.

Mr. John Farr: My hon. Friend has announced what seems to be a quite harmless and fairly unobtrusive little body. Will he inform us of further details about its structure? Is there any intention to debate its establishment, or is it proposed to lay a Green Paper on the subject?

Mr. Whitney: As more information becomes available or as the project takes shape, we shall be happy to advise the House. To comment further at this stage would be premature.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Bearing in mind the special relationship which already exists between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and the


fact that both are members of the United Nations and the European Community, can my hon. Friend explain why it is necessary for this forum to be formed at all?

Mr. Whitney: I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes any measure — non-governmental, as this is, or governmental — which seeks to improve knowledge, contacts and understanding between the peoples of our two countries.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This organisation has no doubt been prompted by the fact that there are about 1 million Eire citizens living in Great Britain. Would he agree to the creation of a similar organisation for Pakistan, the West Indies and India, because they have large communities in the United Kingdom, visited also by the Foreign Minister of their country of origin?

Mr. Whitney: The premise of that question is wrong. Many organisations link Britain with many other countries, both within the Commonwealth and outside it.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Without wishing to read too much into the announcement which the Minister has made, the official Opposition welcome the move and of course welcome the possibility of better relationships between Dublin and London. We welcome what is proposed because it is a move in the right direction and we hope that it proves to be a springboard to further steps forward.

Mr. Whitney: I understand that it is not often that the Government manage to please the Opposition. I only hope that in the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure he does not make the mistake of some of his hon. Friends in seeing too much in the announcement that I have made.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 OCTOBER — Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER — Second Reading of the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motions relating to the British Gas Corporation (Transfer of shares of subsidiaries) Order, the Gas Act 1972 (Modifications) Order, and the British Gas Corporation (further disposal of offshore interests) directions, 1983.
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER — Motions of the Civil Defence (Grant) and (General Local Authority Functions) Orders for England and Wales, and for Scotland.
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). Subject for debate to be announced.
FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Civil Service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Foot: First, I take up the exchanges that took place a short while ago on the events that are taking place in central America, which are extremely urgent. There is still time for the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Conservative Members do not seem to follow what is happening in the world. There is still time for the Government to make a proper statement to the House, on which the Foreign Secretary could be cross-examined. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement tomorrow so that we may help to clear up some of the confusions and alarums that were created today by the Prime Minister about the British Government's attitude on the matter.
Attempts have been made throughout the week to get a statement from the Government about their public expenditure plans and how the cash limits will operate which they have announced. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the statement that was made yesterday by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury added insult to the injury that we had already suffered, and that the right: hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the major questions. Although the Opposition have been pressing from 9 July that we should have a proper statement and a debate, we have had neither. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman alters the business that has been arranged for when we return to ensure that the Government will provide what they should have provided before the House departed for the summer recess—a proper debate in Government time on their public expenditure plans and on what has happened to the Government's programme in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman said on Monday that he thought that there could be a statement about the access of disabled young persons to the youth training scheme. I think that he gave, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), an undertaking, or a near undertaking, that there would be a statement on the matter before the House rose for the summer recess. I ask him to say something about that.

Mr. Biffen: I shall start by referring to the exchanges that took place between myself and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I undertook to refer the matters that he raised about the disabled and the youth training sceheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I have been in touch with the Department and I understand that it will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on public expenditure. If we can be in a reminiscing mood on the penultimate day before the summer recess, I cannot remember any Chief Secretary coming to the Dispatch Box and satisfying his audience. It is not in the nature of the Chief Secretary's job to do that. I sat through the statement and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend dealt most authoritatively with the problems that arose from the recent statement on public spending. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said about how we may approach these issues when we return in the autumn.
The position adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the policy of the United States towards central America was authoritative and in no sense gave rise either to confusion or alarm. However, I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's request that there should be a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps we can pursue that request through the usual channels.

Dr. David Owen: I ask the Leader of the House to take up the Prime Minister's refusal to make any change in the allocation of Supply days. Of course, the right hon. Lady was speaking as a prejudiced source and as a party leader. The right hon. Gentleman is a most unprejudiced and non-partisan source on these matters for, as leader of the House, he has responsibilities for the entire House. I ask for an assurance that over the summer recess he will give some thought to the outrageous mechanism that means that 28 per cent. of the electorate, as represented by the Official Opposition, has total control over Supply days and that 26 per cent. of the electorate has no representation, at all. Bearing in mind his overall responsibilities to the House and, I suggest, to the country as a whole, to maintain justice and fairness I suggest that he is bound to make some changes to the Supply day procedures and that he will not tempt us to take other action, which otherwise we shall be forced to consider.

Mr. Biffen: I have to observe that the Supply day arrangements have been authorised by the House. On the whole, they have served the House tolerably well over the years. As I am asked to think about them during the holiday, and as I am anxious to help in every direction that I can, I shall, of course, think about them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to intimidate me in my thinking.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the Government's strong commitment to energy conservation, will my right hon. Friend ensure that time is made available either for a debate or a statement on the matter soon after we return in the autumn? It appears from press reports that there is a strong case for setting up an energy efficiency office within the Department of Energy to co-ordinate this policy.

Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. As he has taken so keen an interest in energy conservation, I hope that he will feel able to pursue the matter with all the advantages that private Members' time offers.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the young disabled and the youth training scheme when I raised the issue with him on Monday, but is he aware that many people will think that it is not good enough for the Secretary of State for Employment to deal with the issue merely by letter? Should there not be an oral statement to the House, on which the Secretary of State could be questioned? We are talking about the careers of severely disabled young people, which will be damaged if nothing is done before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Biffen: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comment. I am sure that he will appreciate that I gave no commitment that there would be a statement. I said that I would see what could be done, and I stand by that. I shall consider the matter further.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge implications for our schools in the Green Paper that was issued today on corporal punishment and school discipline? Does he agree that the House should take a view on this important matter, which could completely undermine the traditional basis of the teacher acting in loco parentis, on which school discipline has been based for many years?

Mr. Biffen: I am certain that all that has much validity, but there is no prospect of the issue being debated today, tomorrow, or, as things stand, in the first week when we return.

Mr. John McWilliam: May I prevail upon——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the normal practice to have two Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen participating in business questions.

Mr. McWilliam: I would not normally have attempted to intervene from the Front Bench, Mr. Speaker. However, I feel strongly about the reply of the Leader of the House to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as well as the reply that he gave me during his concluding speech in the debate on whether we should adjourn for the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House twist the arm of the Secretary of State for Employment slightly harder? It is not good enough for us to read a written reply to an individual Member on a point that interests so many hon. Members. Had I thought that that reply was forthcoming, I should have divided the House on Monday.

Mr. Biffen: That may be so, but Hansard will reveal that I gave no such undertaking. I promised that I would use my best endeavours, and that is where I stand. I cannot add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the unemployment problem will not go away during the summer recess when many of us will take advantage of the time to see many employers in our constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange, although perhaps not in the first week after we return in the autumn, an open debate on employment,


trade and industry so that the House can discuss the problems of unemployment, trde and the way that trading agreements could perhaps adversely affect employment?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points about topics which are of the atmost importance, but they do not feature in the business for the first week that we are back in autumn, and I am not able to speculate on what might happen thereafter.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Leader of the House serves the whole House and he knows the difficulties that arise when we hear an announcement, such as the one made yesterday by the Prime Minister, and we are unable to ask any questions until October. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Prime Minister so that we may have a statement from No. 10 Downing street about doctors? He knows that the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration does not include a clause similar to that being imposed on nurses. He knows that when consultants took industrial action the hospital admission waiting lists trebled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are business questions.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get a statement?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Bearing in mind that BBC external services are widely regarded in all parts of the House, that they have already been cut eight times during the past 10 years and that they are desperately short of new transmitters, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate so that we can learn what importance the Government attach to this independent projection of the British way of life and our democratic traditions in a divided and dangerous world?

Mr. Biffen: Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary made a statement which touched specifically upon that point, and, therefore, he was available for questions. In those circumstances, I cannot offer the likelihood of Government time for a further consideration of the matter in the near future.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the training and qualification levels of directors and other senior staff of social services departments? Is he aware that the problem has become particularly severe, so much so that in my constituency there has been no director in post for about six months? The people who have been encouraged to apply or who are shortlisted include a Royal Air force Jaguar pilot, a redundant managing director from Glaxo and a Royal Navy officer from the Falklands. If the right hon. Gentleman will not arrange such a debate to protect the interests of the people, will he do it to protect the interests of the Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to this topic which he might be able to raise during private Members' time. No provision has been made for the debate to take place during Government time in the first week back after the recess.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Will the Leader of the House accept that the publication today by the Boundary Commission of the new proposals for the

European constituencies is another attempt to impose a grossly unfair electoral system on this country? Will he arrange an early debate during the next session so that we can seek the opinions of the House on whether such a system should be perpetuated in this country?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to ask for further debate on central American affairs when he has not bothered to visit the north American continent for nearly 30 years? Notwithstanding that, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given our position in Belize, this is an important subject which the House should be given an early opportunity to debate?

Mr. Biffen: As to my hon. Friend's first point, experience has taught me the unwisdom of responding to his invitation. As to his second point, yes, of course, I recognise that it is an important topic but many other topics compete for the time of the House. I can hold out no hope of satisfying my hon. Friend during the first week back.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The House will be adjourned for about three months, and as unemployment will have risen considerably during that period because of the statements of the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, will the Leader of the House undertake that a full-scale debate on unemployment and the Government's unemployment policy will take place at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give the specific commitment sought by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bet fairly heavily that the problems of the economy will dominate our discussions in the autumn as they have recently.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If, during the summer recess, President Reagan's sabre rattling in central America is translated into direct American military involvement in Nicaragua and other central American countries, thus threatening world peace, will the House be recalled?

Mr. Biffen: The provisions and facilities for the recall of the House are set out in Standing Order No. 143. I hope that we can all leave the Chamber hopeful and expectant that we shall not be recalled until 24 October.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was going to call Mr. Joan Evans.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Since the House is going into a long recess as the position in central America is developing, and as deep anxiety is being expressed by large sections of American public opinion, will the Leader of the House seriously consider making contingency arrangements for the recall of Parliament? Parliament has been recalled before when there have been serious international incidents. Will he recall Parliament if the Opposition demand it?

Mr. Biffen: Recess is in no sense analogous with holiday. It merely means that Members of Parliament are not doing their work here: they are doing it in their


constituencies and elsewhere. In that context, like marriage, the recalling of Parliament should not be entered upon lightly or wantonly. The provisions are set out in Standing Order No. 143. I cannot add to the reply that I gave previously.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his help. I shall let him have the last word.

Mr. Skinner: Will the leader of the House bear in mind that, if there is any attempt to recall Parliament during the recess, he wants to let the Social Democrats and Liberals know well in advance because I am told that the sabbatical idea is spreading? Will he also bear in mind that during the last session of Parliament, when they had about 20 hon. Members, the Social Democrats' voting record was less than 40 per cent? They were turning up two shifts out of five.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman should not try to turn me into the Social Democrats' protector and godfather.

Royal Air Force (Defence Suppression Weapon)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's decision about a defence suppression weapon for the Royal Air Force.
The Government have been examining options for a missile to meet the requirement of the Royal Air Force for a defence suppression weapon to arm Tornado GR1 aircraft. The choice has been between the new British Aerospace air launched anti-radar missile, ALARM, and the American-developed high speed anti-radiation missile, HARM, either produced partly in this country by Lucas Aerospace or supplied direct by the United States.
This has not been an easy decision. There has been a wide range of complex factors to weigh, including operational performance, technical merit, technological promise, employment and industrial issues, costs and availability.
We have decided that, subject to satisfactory completion of contract negotiations, we shall place an order for the development and production of ALARM with British Aerospace Dynamics Group.
This will provide significant work at British Aerospace Dynamics Group factories at Hatfield, Stevenage and Bracknell in the short term and at Lostock, near Bolton, in the later part of the decade. Marconi Space and Defence Systems will be a major subcontractor for the missile seeker head, with consequential employment at Stanmore and Portsmouth. Technology relevant to a range of future military missile requirements will thus be maintained and advanced in this country. At its peak the order is expected to sustain over 3,000 jobs in the United Kingdom companies concerned, of which about half will be with British Aerospace Dynamics and Marconi Space and Defence Systems.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I welcome the Government's decision to choose the ALARM project rather than the HARM project. The right hon. Gentleman will know that ALARM has the support of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions as well as of British industry. After all, those people will be involved in its development and production. Therefore, their support and commitment to the project is important. We are glad to see an entirely defensive weapon being developed.
Does the fact that the Ministry of Defence has decided to choose a British project mean that it will now resist the allurements of much vaunted United States technology, which all too often disintegrates, as we saw with Pershing 2 off Cape Canaveral yesterday? Does it mean a change in the climate of opinion in the Ministry of Defence so that it will consider the needs of British industry and give preference to British technology in other projects that are under consideration, such as the P146?
Will the Secretary of State say whether this is a fixed-price contract with penalty clauses for late delivery, which was offered at the beginning? If so, does that mean that the Ministry of Defence will go for fixed-price contracts with other firms to prevent the alarming cost over-run that we have seen in other Ministry of Defence contracts?
Finally, may I ask about employment prospects at Lucas Aerospace? The right hon. Gentleman will know that if British Aerospace had been the prime contractor —I take it that he means that it is not—it would have been prepared to offer work to Lucas Aerospace workers, who would have worked on the HARM project. Have the Government taken into account employment prospects at Lucas? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about them?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not take the same insular view of United States technology as the hon. Lady. My view is that we have a great deal to gain from an advanced North Atlantic Alliance. There will be many occasions when we shall wish to buy United States technology. I shall do all that I can to persuade the United States that it would be to their advantage to buy British technology quite often. It is a fact that about 95 per cent.—if I remember the figure correctly—of my budget is spent with British industry. That is a very high percentage.
I am in favour of fixed-price contracts, whenever they can practicably and rationally be entered into. I shall seek to continue that practice and perhaps extend it.
In her question about employment, the hon. Lady may have misunderstood the position. British Aerospace is the prime contractor in the project. It must follow that I cannot place work with both British Aerospace and Texas Instruments, when I have only one option in front of me. There are consequences for Lucas, which is in partnership with Texas Instruments and not with British Aerospace. However, I do not want to answer speciic questions about employment in Lucas.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision was difficult and that the consideration that he and his, hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave to it is a tribute to the Procurement Executive? Does he recognise that he has made the right decision and that it is a tribute to British industry that it has won an important contract with enormous export potential, which will benefit those who work in the industry as well as the subcontractors? Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the problems of Lucas Aerospace, bearing in mind that it is a major contractor in defence aerospace? Anything that can be done to ensure its participation in the contract should be done.

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for his fulsome tribute to the Procurement Executive. I shall do my best to pass on his message as appropriately as possible. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a difficult, complex and balanced decision. There was not an easy answer, but I believe that the Government have taken the right decision. There must be consequences for companies that did not win. I appreciate that, but I have no doubt that Lucas will win many other contracts with my Department, with which it is a prime contractor.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In what was a balanced decision, how important were the employment consequences, with which nearly half the right hon. Gentleman's statement was concerned? Given that other matters of a similar character, such as the ordering of the Airbus for British Airways, have defence relevance, why are the Government taking a different line there?

Mr. Heseltine: In fairness, I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that employment is consequential upon the main announcement that I made. I would not want to tell the House that the employment consequences were a decisive element in the argument, because there were other ingredients in the decision. Perhaps the technology base is a prime consideration, but again that was not a decisive factor. There were many factors, all of which have to be balanced, one with the other. In no context in defence can one put at the forefront of influences on a decision anything other than the defence interests of the country. However, many other things influence the decision if the matter is in balance. I would not want to pretend that the situation was other than that.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: While I accept that my right hon. Friend had a difficult decision to make and came down on what appeared to be the right side, certainly in the view of the House, we all recognise that there may be occasions in the future when my right hon. Friend has to make a decision that is not quite so popular. Does not that underline the fact that there is far too much senseless duplication in military technology in the western world?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made an absolutely critical point, but the problem is that someone has to make a decision if we are to change the assumptions and practices of various allies. If we are to break out of the present practice, the first decision invariably means that we have to forgo either employment or technological opportunities in our country. That is bound to be at least a risk—perhaps a justifiable risk—but we cannot take it often. I am sympathetic to the feeling behind my hon. Friend's question, but the House will remember that we buy twice as much from the United States as it buys from us, which shows our acceptance that there are technologies overseas that we cannot produce ourselves.

Mr. David Young: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision, but I am concerned about how long it took him to make it, particularly because Ministers in his Department were saying to delegations of Members of Parliament, of which I was one, that the decision would be arrived at at the beginning of April. How much of the delay was due to pressure on his Department from the United States Government? In future, will the right hon. Gentleman say that under the Government's "Buy British" policy, when there is a balance, that balance will go in favour of British workers?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks me that question, but it would be wrong to suggest for a moment that pressure was put on the British Government by the United States Government. I mentioned the matter to Mr. Weinberger when he was over here. We discussed the issue. It is right that we should do so. I would expect him to do the same on a reciprocal basis. I do not run from the hon. Gentleman's point. It took a long time to make the decision, perhaps longer than one would have liked, although the general election played a critical part in extending the time. The Government had to decide whether to try to take a slightly quicker decision than they would have liked in the run-up to the general election or to wait and take a fuller view after the general election. We took the latter view. That added about six weeks to the decision-making process.

Mr. Bill Walker: How long will it be before the equipment becomes operational on RAF aircraft? I am sure that the RAF is pleased at the decision that has been taken, but one aspect that concerns the RAF is when the equipment will be available.

Mr. Heseltine: I should like to help my hon. Friend, but I know that he will understand if I do not. When there is a certain delay before the introduction into service of a specific weapon system, it is normal practice not to announce in advance when the date of introduction will be. I believe that to be the right practice.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision will be very widely welcomed, not just because of the number of jobs that it will protect, important though that is in the current industrial climate, but because it provides positive encouragement for the future of an independent British missile technology, which may be extremely important in the defence of this country?

Mr. Heseltine: I go along with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The issue is not just missile technology but seek-ahead — the smart generation of weapon systems, which depend on their capacity to strike enemy targets as a result of the characteristics of the targets. That technique of warfare will undoubtedly become more prevalent as the century advances.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I welcome the excellent news on behalf of the work force of British Aerospace, Lostock. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable for future defence procurement policy that we keep control of as much of the technology of our advanced weaponry as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend, who was interested in this subject before the election and has continued his interest, is fully apprised of the value of this technology. Having regard to the potential development of this technology, it is important that Britain should remain in the forefront. Marconi undoubtedly has particular expertise in this. Nevertheless, we must understand what the priorities are and that it is not possible to pursue them all.

Mr. Peter Pike: I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises the difficulties that the decision will cause to Lucas, especially Lucas Aerospace at Burnley. Will he give an assurance that he will do everything possible to ensure that no unemployment is caused at Lucas Aerospace, Burnley as a result of the decision?

Mr. Heseltine: I should like to help the hon. Member, but that is not my responsibility. Lucas made a valiant and coherent attempt to win the contract. It was unsuccessful, but this is no different from any other of the large number of contracts that it does or does not win. It must be a matter for the commercial judgment of the company.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Welcome though the decison is, can my right hon. Friend assure us that it does not carry any danger that the Americans will not buy equipment from us such as Searchwater, about which they have been taking a long time to reach a decision?

Mr. Heseltine: The House will not be surprised to know that American politicians are no different from politicians anywhere else in the world. They have the same pressures upon them as we do, but they will be aware that

British technology is often ahead of American technology. They have purchased significant quantities of technology from us, a classic example being the head-up display on the F16. The overall balance, however, is substantially in favour of the United States, and we purchase about twice as much from the Americans as they do from us.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: If my right hon. Friend does not wish to give the in-service date, will he give an assurance that, whatever the delays were in the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive, they will be recaptured in the development programmes so that the Royal Air Force, which should have the weapons now, will not go undefended longer than is absolutely necessary?
Will he also give an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will monitor most carefully the management ability of the supplier to ensure that no delays occur that will leave our pilots unprotected, as they are now?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that question. I assure him that significant steps have been taken in this context to give particular defence capability to Tornado pilots, and we believe that those steps are effective, in part, in meeting the threat that exists. It is important that effective monitoring should take place. I believe that the prime contractor, British Aerospace, will regard the contract as a significant challenge to its capability to deliver what it has promised within the agreed time scale.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his decision is important for two reasons? First, ALARM is a relatively lighter weapons system than HARM and can be fitted to a wider range of aircraft. It is thus potentially more applicable to the Hawk, Harrier, Jaguar and so on. Secondly, although defence suppression is important, a stand-off capability for interdiction aircraft to penetrate today's complicated air defences will be important in the not too distant future.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these subjects. In the first instance, I rely upon the judgment of the RAF as to the operational requirements that it seeks for this weapon system and I shall consider carefully any matters that it puts to me.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Following today's most welcome statement, does not my right hon. Friend deplore the reported decision of British Airways to buy American aircraft rather than the Airbus Industrie A320 and the consequent loss of jobs, expertise and technology—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has much to do with the statement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What constraints do the Government intend to impose on the producers of the equipment to prevent them selling it abroad in countries that may be unable to pay for it in the future?

Mr. Heseltine: That is an important question, but it is wider than the financial penalties involved in selling to countries that could not pay. There are, rightly, the tightest constraints on the export of armaments. We consider not just the financial ability of the country to pay but the political desirability of selling weapons systems to


individual countries. That was the position under the Labour Government and it remains so under the present Government.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision will be particularly well received in Stanmore, the headquarters of Marconi Space and Defence Systems, as it will help to keep together a brilliant scientific and technical team? Does my right hon. Friend think that the ALARM system, apart from satisfying our domestic Air Force systems in the future, is capable of export promotion and development with other European air forces?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellence of the MSDS team and its capability. It was an important factor in reaching a judgment that that team should be kept in existence, not only with demonstrator projects but with the capability of taking a project through to full development. The export potential of the ALARM system must be a matter for the contractors involved. The leading contractor, British Aerospace, considers that there is significant export potential for the system, but that is for the company to fulfil.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is, the Secretary of State aware that it would make much more sense if the Government made a statement urging industries operating at a low ebb to manufacture kidney machines on a massive scale for the National Health Service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. That question has nothing to do with the statement.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it has. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said no.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order at the end of the statements.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The National Health Service under this Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacKay—

Mr. Skinner: It is a scandal.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be most welcome in my constituency, especially in Bracknell, and that my constituents will believe that the decision was taken not for sentimental or emotional reasons but because we have the best weapons system available anywhere in the world to offer to this country?

Mr. Heseltine: I had not fully appreciated what a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends had constituencies interested in this project.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Pure coincidence.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Even in Scotland.

Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the enthusiastic support of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) for his constituency interests, but it is important to recognise that this weapon system does not yet exist. It has to be developed to a cost, to work and to be on time.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I welcome the decision. Although my right hon. Friend cannot disclose any in-service date, can the prime contractor, British Aerospace, be persuaded to improve prove upon the date that has been disclosed to my right hon. Friend? In view of the need to improve the two-way street of defence sales and procurement between Britain and the United States, the export potential of the project and the decision by some United States forces that HARM is not exactly what they require, is there any potential for the sale of the equipment to the United States?

Mr. Heseltine: I would be satisfied with the in-service date that was envisaged in our discussions. I admire my hon. Friend's early attempt to export the missile to the United States. I should be only too happy to encourage that. It would be more appropriate in this case, however, to concentrate on the general arguments for the two-way street which are well understood on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Is my right hon. Friend's statement not a vote of confidence in the excellence of design and workmanship in Hatfield and in the aerospace skills in Hertfordshire? Will those skills be considered when he makes a decision on ASRAAM and the A320 Airbus?

Mr. Skinner: What has that got to do with the subject?

Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friend that all these matters will be carefully borne in mind when we make decisions, but I cannot undertake to make the same decision for the same reasons.

Mr. Graham Bright: Although my right hon. Friend's announcement is good news for British Aerospace, it is not such good news for Lucas, which would have built about 50 per cent. of the HARM missile. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have constituents in both companies? Will he use his good offices to persuade British Aerospace to give Lucas the opportunity to participate in the ALARM missile?

Mr. Robert Hughes: In a cartel, do you mean?

Mr. Heseltine: I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend if he has constituents on both sides of the argument. That must make his decision almost as difficult as that which faced the Government. It would be unrealistic to suggest that there could be a further spread of the work-sharing arrangements in view of the tight competitive decisions so far.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision and I am aware that it was made after a good deal of deliberation. Will he assure the House that the two-way street that he mentioned, which, he will remember, I have strongly supported for the past four years, should be extended in this regard because the House and the country feel that arms producers in the United States tend to string our industry along for far too long and then suddenly let us down, as they will choose only their own industries, which are in competition with ours? Does he agree that that might be one of the reasons for the enormous discrepancy in the two-way street? Will, he please ensure that the ALARM system is properly and adequately promoted in the United States?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must understand that there are bound to be political


pressures on decisions such as these on defence or any other industry. It is wrong to cast a general description against one of our allies in this context.
I must pay tribute to the United States for ensuring that the two-way street has reached a point at which the Americans buy half as much from us as we buy from them, whereas not so long ago the trade was four to one in their favour. It is not possible to make narrow national issues out of this. The Americans have made considerable strides towards a better balance. However, they will always be subjected to the same constituency and industrial pressures as right hon. and hon. Members here.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can tell me under what Standing Order it is possible for you to draw the attention of an hon. Member to the fact that he is not allowed to draw an analogy between the Government's priorities on weapons of war as opposed to the National Health Service and the disabled.
I well recall, as do many other right hon. and hon. Members, comparisons between the spending of taxpayers' money and other moneys being made when statements are made, when questions are asked and during speeches. I find it quite remarkable that, on this occasion, I was not allowed to make the vivid comparison between the massive amount of money spent on defence and the need for money to be spent in the National Health Service and for the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I can answer the hon. Gentleman. I stopped the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) because his question did not directly relate to the statement. I stopped the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for exactly the same reason.

Fisheries Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on July 25 and 26.
With the Minister of State at the Scottish Office and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department, I represented the United Kingdom.
Once again the Council could not agree about the allocation of quotas for North sea herring and I greatly regret that it proved to be impossible to settle other parts of the package, including the proposed arrangements on structures, in the absence of agreement on herring. The methods of determining quotas for herring will be discussed further by officials before the next meeting of the Council on 3 October.
The Council also refused to confirm the Community's fishing agreement with Norway but the Council did agree, by a qualified majority, to permit the Norwegians to extend their interim fishing for North sea herring to two thirds of their proposed allocation of 31,000 tonnes. I voted against this proposal. The considerations were finely balanced. I attach great importance to our fishing relations with Norway and would certainly not wish in any way to harm them. There are also very important advantages for our fishing fleet in the maintenance of the agreement with Norway. I nevertheless conclude that I should not support an arrangement which permitted Norwegian fishermen to fish for North sea herring when United Kingdom fishermen were not able to do so.
Finally, in my statement on the previous Council meeting I was asked about the possibility of extending controls over foreign klondikers. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friends and I are laying an order before Parliament today which will extend to foreign vessels the arrangements which currently apply to British pelagic vessels transshipping their catch to klondikers within our fishery limits.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The Minister has held his present position for about one month and, because of his predecessors's actions, has been forced to accept two humiliating experiences. He is now beginning to call it Canossa rather than Brussels.
Has not this deal angered British fishermen, especially Scottish and Shields fishermen, more than any previous one? The original deal, which was made in January, was supported by the fishermen and they assured me today that they supported it on the basis that the Government promised them they would fight like hell to get a good agreement. The Government have failed.
The Minister said that he did not support the proposition but did not use his veto. Some opposition that is. The Danes, who will benefit from it, used the veto three times in the two sets of discussions. We, who will suffer most, learn that our representative did not use the veto. It is a humiliating capitulation. The anger in the north-east of Scotland, Shields and Shetland reflects that.
In the mid-1960s we were fishing 1 million tonnes of herring in the North sea. It was industrial over-fishing, most notably by the Danes, and purse-net fishing by the Norwegians which slaughtered the stocks and brought about the introduction of a ban. We, who honour the


principle of conservation, have had to pick up the tab. The Danes, who have been over-fishing this year, were given extra cod and mackerel by the Norwegians and, in compensation, we gave the Norwegians a good quota. We, who gave that quota because of Danish action, must now suffer again. They now have an extra 9.000 tonnes of fish. What a bizarre and ludicrous situation we have. They are fishing in our waters just outside the 12-mile limit—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I should not he too sure of that.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that they are fishing outside the 12-mile limit—and we can stand on Rattray head and see Norwegian fishermen taking out our fish, and our fishermen are not allowed to fish. It is ludicrous, bizarre and humiliating.
I hope that the Minister will go back to the negotiating table. This time he should take the veto with him and use it. I do not single out the Norwegians for blame, except for their over-fishing in the past. I blame the Danes, but, above all, I blame the Government for reaching an agreement in January without having settled these basic issues.
Will Britain be able to protect its fishing quotas? Hon. Members may remember that a fortnight ago the Minister assured me that we could control over-fishing by klondikers. He has now had to admit that he was wrong and that the Government are bringing in an order on policing after the damage has been done. I have just left the Vote Office and I can tell the House that the order is still not in front of us, at the very last syllable of recorded time, with the House rising tomorrow. It is a disgraceful affair.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman moved from the Whips' Office, because it is easier to look after sheep than it is to look after fish. I feel sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to pick up the tab, but he had better retrieve his reputation and return Britain to the position achieved under the so-called superb agreement which his predecessor said would last for 20 years. However, six months later, it is in pieces, and Britain must suffer for it.

Mr. Jopling: We have heard the usual display of extravagant language by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I am sorry that he has not taken the trouble to consider everything that he said. He has condemned the Government because, he says, they did not settle the herring arrangement in January, but he has been around for long enough to know that herring fishing in the northern and middle parts of the North sea was banned for the previous six years, so we could not make that agreement in January. Everyone knew that, because there was no fishing, an agreement would have: to be postponed.
The hon. Gentleman condemned me for failing to get an agreement on herring. I could have helped to reach an agreement on herring—I cannot say what others might have done—but there was nothing on offer in Brussels this week that would have been satisfactory to our fishermen. If I had made an agreement just for the sake of making one, that would not have been in the interests of British fishermen. The order relating to klondikers will be laid before the House today.
The use of the veto was, as I said earlier, a fine judgment, since a breakdown in fishing relations with Norway could have implications for our fishermen who

fish in Norwegian waters. The matter was not clear cut, and I could claim no vital national interest to justify the use of the Luxembourg disclaimer.
It is worth explaining to the hon. Gentleman that there are two sides to the argument. I do not wish Norwegian fishermen to fish for herring in the northern and middle parts of the North sea. That is why I voted against the proposal, although it has been allowed. If we had continued to stop Norway fishing for herring in that part of the North sea, Norway would undoubtedly have taken retaliatory action.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Britain has the right to fish for about 5,500 tonnes of white fish in the waters around northern Norway. That fishery affects especially Grimsby, Lowestoft and other ports on the east coast. At least 100 British vessels can now continue to fish for white fish in the southern Norwegian sector because Norway has been allowed to fish for herring. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that it was a black and white decision, but he is wrong. Many of our fishermen will be glad that Norway will continue to fish—to put it in perspective, it is only another 9,000 tonnes of herring — for the remaining part of its interim quota, because it means that many of them can continue to fish for white fish in Norwegian waters.

Sir Walter Clegg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that the Danes are abusing the Luxembourg disclaimer by using the veto constantly, which is unhelpful, while at the same time they are continuing to over-fish, which is deplorable?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a serious problem. Some states use the Luxembourg disclaimer much too often, which is not within the spirit of the Community. As the House knows, under both Governments the United Kingdom has used the Luxembourg disclaimer very infrequently. It would have been wrong to use it on an issue of this sort. One could not have claimed logically that it was vital to British interests, and we would have been mistaken to use it in the circumstances.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is not the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has been forced to make to the House this afternoon further proof of the fatal consequences of transferring control over our fishery waters to the Community, which will result in continuing loss to our fishing industry and which will bedevil our relations with other fishing countries with which we should be making mutually advantageous agreements?

Mr. Jopling: It is a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to talk in those terms. If we can settle the outstanding and difficult problem of North sea herring fishing, and if we can add to the agreement made by my predecessor earlier this year proper policing powers, which are already under way and which I believe will become effective during next year, we shall then have the opportunity to have a managed fishery in European waters which can be shared out and be a fruitful product for us all.
The right hon. Gentleman should remember what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said a few moments ago about the way in which fisheries were ruined by over-fishing, when there were no controls, by selfish people who take no notice of long-term conservation. As


the common fisheries policy evolves, provided that we persevere and get over our immediate difficulties, we shall have a well-managed fishery which will bring prosperity to all of us.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will give considerable comfort to the fishermen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and to the fishermen in my constituency? Should not the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House must take into account, as does my right hon. Friend, the interests of the white fishing industry? As a result of his statement, at least the door is being kept open. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the attitude of the hon. Member for Paisley, South brings no comfort either to his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby or to me?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will not mind if I quote from a letter that he wrote to me on 6 July, speaking for Grimsby, in which he said:
We have only one paramount aim at the moment and that is to allow the Norwegians to continue to fish for herring because if they are stopped as they now have been there is a real danger of retaliation against British fishing in Norwegian waters and that is now at its seasonal peak.
The hon. Gentleman continued:
It is also reasonable that the Norwegians be given a second interim quota.
That is what happened. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I voted against its happening. However, we must realise that this is a balanced judgment. It is not one-sided, nor is all of it a minus to British fisheries, and we should recognise it as such.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: As I have been quoted, perhaps the Minister will permit me to second my own remarks in the sense that the real problem is not Norway. It would be unreasonable if the Norwegians suffered because of a dispute in which they were not involved. Indeed, we depend on reciprocal catches in Norwegian waters, which could be threatened by this disagreement. The real problem is, first, Danish over-fishing and, secondly, a complete inability of Common Market institutions to handle such delicate matters as fishing quotas and the national interests that are involved. As the Market is now deadlocked by the Danes, why does not the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to assert the national interest by imposing on Danish and Norwegian fishermen in British waters the same kind of reporting and control arrangements for any species as are imposed on our vessels in Norwegian waters?

Mr. Jopling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the advantage to his constituents of the fact that the Norwegian fisheries will continue to be open to them. He condemned Danish over-fishing and so do I. It is for that reason that I take every opportunity to press the Commission to bring its policing arrangements, the use of the logbooks and so on, into effect as soon as it can be arranged. This is hugely important, and we shall do everything we can to press it.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take no cognisance of the

suggestion of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the Norwegians and Danes should be stopped from fishing in British waters, because the retaliation effect on our demersal fleet would be catastrophic.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I said the reverse.

Mr. McQuarrie: There is considerable anger in my constituency, which has traditionally fished for herring, over the fact that the Norwegians have been given a further 8,500 tonnes. I understand that that is because the demersal fleet is to be allowed to continue to fish in Norwegian waters. I also understand that the demersal fleet was prepared to come back to shore if it meant that the Norwegians would be prevented from obtaining that 8,500 tonnes. When fishing opens on 1 October, will the British fleet be allowed to fish a minimum quota of 21,000 tonnes in the North sea?

Mr. Jopling: I can perfectly understand that my hon. Friend's herring fishing constituents are extremely cross over the fact that the Norwegians will be allowed to continue to fish for about 9,000 tonnes. It was for that reason that we voted against the proposal. As to the position after 1 October, I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the southern part of the North sea. As fishing took place there last year, that will continue on a roll-over basis from 1 October. I cannot confirm precisely that our own fishermen will be allowed 21,000 tonnes, but I can confirm that we shall have 31 per cent. of that fishery. The figure mentioned by my hon. Friend is, I think, based on the total allowable catch for last year of 68,000 tonnes. There is a possibility that the total allowable catch will be somewhat reduced, but I assure him that our 31 per cent. share will remain intact. The total catch may be reduced for conservation reasons. That has yet to be made absolutely clear, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not quarrel with that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If the Minister is so properly in favour of maintaining good fishery relations with Norway, and is therefore in favour of the 31,000 tonnes allocation, why did he vote against a limit of two thirds? The only reason one can think of is that it is virtually impossible to monitor, and many people suspect that it will be much exceeded. Indeed, the Minister said during questions that it would be about a year or so before proper policing arrangements could be introduced.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman possibly misunderstands the basis of the 31,000 tonnes allocation for Norway, which has been proposed but not confirmed by the Council of Ministers. There are three parts—first, compensation for over-fishing by Community fishermen in the past; secondly, a repayment of a swap arrangement which has been carried on in previous years; and, thirdly, it is partly, but only a small part, an allocation of herring to Norway. On over-fishing and the repayment of the swap, we shall have to repay that this year, next year or some time. By allowing the Norwegians to continue to fish now we shall repay a debt that will not recur next year. In a sense that will be got out of the way and Norway will need a very much smaller allocation next year if we have repaid that one-off debt.
As to the veto — I say this in reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), whom I did


not properly answer—we shall always hold ourselves in readiness to use it when important national interests arise. On this occasion we took a judgment that they did not, hence we did not use it.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Was any further consideration given to the proposal to extend the south-west fishery mackerel box and the associated introduction of stricter conservation measures? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing anxiety in the south-west about the delay in introducing these sensible measures?

Mr. Jopling: We would very much have liked to have a continuing discussion on conservation measures, especially the mackerel box off the south-west of England. We pressed hard for the discussions to extend to those issues, to the remaining TACs and quotas and to other conservation measures. As it was not possible to reach agreement on the herring fishery in the North sea, I fear that we were prevented from moving to those other matters on which there was a basis for agreement and on which we could have reached agreement. I very much regret that the activities of one state stopped us moving to those matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister accept that his statement displays the total inadequacy of the agreement reached in January? While some hon. Members might take comfort from the fact that the interests of the white fish fleet have been protected this time and that the penalty for the Government's failure has been paid by the herring fishermen, in three months or six months it will be the other way round and we shall then see whether the right hon. Gentleman quotes Grimsby letters with such grace and favour. Is he not aware that the deal cooked up in January was just as bad as the one cooked up before we joined? Its only purpose was to paper over the cracks until the election was passed. The fishermen are now paying for it and the Government have disgraced themselves, as we always said they would.

Mr. Jopling: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. The deal reached in January was a gigantic step forward in getting ourselves a common fisheries policy that will be of great benefit to the Community in years to come.

Mr. Robert Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jopling: Admittedly, the process of reaching a deal is long and difficult. If hon. Members are saying that we ought to accept solutions and arrangements that are basically unsatisfactory to this country, I am sorry, but I am not prepared to do so. Even if it takes a long time, the House will expect us to go battling on until we can get a satisfactory deal.

Mr. John Spence: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about not accepting unsatisfactory deals. We have heard much about the major ports in the questions on my right hon. Friend's statement, and I wish to say something about the smaller ports, such as Filey in my constituency. The fishermen's jobs there are as important to them as individuals as the jobs of fishermen in major ports. Over-fishing and conservation are of major importance to the livelihoods of my constituents. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be carried away by quotas, to the exclusion of the admirable work that he and his predecessor have done on conservation. Conservation

is the key to the livelihood of all our fishermen, whether they come from major or minor ports, and is essential to Filey's continued employment and prosperity.

Mr. Jopling: As one who has often fished off the cob at Filey, with great success, I know what my hon. Friend means, and I have every sympathy with it. We have the small ports in mind and are therefore pursuing conservation measures in all our waters round our coasts, to look after the smaller ports in particular. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of conservation.
As a result of the common fisheries policy hammered out last January, our fishermen in small ports have had a greater opportunity to fish in the waters close to our ports than for years and the access for our fishermen has been dramatically improved. This is just one of the ways in which the common fisheries policy is a great bonus and a great step forward.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Minister aware of the utter outrage that Scottish fishermen feel at the prospect of seeing Norwegian boats fishing for herring in what should be Scottish waters, and of the anger that they feel at the weak way in which the Government have handled the negotiations? Will the Minister explain why, on balance, he found it necessary to vote against the Norwegians being able to fish, but then refused to apply the veto? If it was necessary to vote in other circumstances to prevent the Norwegians from fishing, why did the Minister not apply the national interest principle and use the veto? Was he trying to defend the English white fisheries in deep waters at the expense of Scottish fishermen?

Mr. Jopling: I can understand the outrage of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, but we did not apply the so-called veto because—

Mr. Robert Hughes: "So-called" veto now, is it?

Mr. Jopling: —we did not regard this matter as one of vital national interest. As a nation, we have used that vital national interest on very few occasions in the years since we joined.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Too few.

Mr. Jopling: On this occasion, to have used the veto for a matter that concerned the comparatively small amount of about 9,000 tonnes of herring when there were strong arguments on both sides would have been wrong. As I said in my statement, it was a fine judgment. My judgment was that this was not a sufficiently important national interest for us to use that drastic measure which has been so seldom used in the past.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Minister has shown that there are serious and urgent problems of widespread over-fishing, the absence of Community policing, a lack of agreement on quotas and foreign vessels fishing in United Kingdom waters from which British vessels are excluded, when will the Council meet again?
Secondly, the fishermen from Southend are just as important as the others mentioned, so will my right hon. Friend tell them what our fall-back position is if his optimism proves unfounded and the whole thing collapses into a messy shambles? In other words, what do we do if everything goes wrong with the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend should not talk about over-fishing. Since the common fisheries policy was


agreed in January there has not been evidence of dramatic over-fishing, and my hon. Friend is wrong to talk in those terms.

Mr. Taylor: That was the information last week of the Dutch.

Mr. Jopling: We should be a little careful about making such allegations which in many cases it is not possible to substantiate.
As I said in my statement, the Council will be meeting again on 3 October. I hope that it will then be possible to come to an agreement over herring fisheries in the north and middle parts of the North sea. We shall do our utmost to get a deal, but it will only be one that we think is satisfactory.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Can the Minister confirm that, for the south-west, this statement means that there will be no mackerel box and a continuation of over-fishing? If present trends continue, how long will it be before mackerel becomes an endangered species?

Mr. Jopling: It is true that there has been a delay in the creation of the institution of the mackerel box in the south-west of England, but there will not be unlimited over-fishing. The same quotas for last year will continue to be effective and we shall do everything that we can to get agreements on these matters when we meet again.

Mr. Buchan: It is extraordinary to say that we should not talk about over-fishing. The whole reason for the ban on fishing for herring in the North sea which we are supposed to be implementing is that we are over-fishing.
The Minister tells us that no national interest was involved, but the Danes apparently felt that there was. They threatened to use the veto, and then used it. The right hon. Gentleman did not even threaten to use it. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seemed surprised at the Minister's action, but the Minister said in reply that he voted against the proposal. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is right—either the Minister was for it or he was against it. The worst of all possible postures was to vote against and then to let the proposal through by not using the veto, or even the threat of the veto. The only reason why he opposed the proposal, as far as we can see, was so that he could come to the House and say, "Look, I opposed it. Look how strong the Government have been." However, this is further evidence of the Government's weakness and irresolution.
Four specific questions have to be asked about this statement. The Minister talked about the situation in the southern North sea when the herring season opens there in October. Has not the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong when he refers to us having a 31 per cent. quota of the rollover 40,000 tonnes? Is it not the case that the roll-over would mean 68,000 tonnes with a 31 per cent. quota? There would be a hell of a lot more fish if it did.
Secondly, can we accept the Minister's guarantee, his pledge, that that quota will remain intact when we have

seen the other quotas bust ever since January? Thirdly, are 60 Norwegian boats fishing off the north-west of Shetland, having been told by the Norwegian Government that they can move into the North sea to resume herring fishing?
Fourthly, did we initially press for a 30 per cent. quota, was the Commission's proposal initially 28 per cent., and was that then reduced to 23·5 per cent.? Did the Minister make it clear at Brussels this week that if the total allowable catch was increased, far from our quota being increased along with it, because this would give a bigger proportion that could be allowable for Britain our quota would be reduced to 15 per cent?
The House is faced with an intolerable position. In any other circumstances I should be pressing for the Adjournment of the House so that we could debate this issue. Instead of doing so, I can only reiterate the feeling of the fishing industry, and both sides of the House, that this is yet another sell-out, another capitulation along the lines which we warned the Minister about in January when the Government boasted of a superb 20 years' agreement.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman would not be himself—whether he is going on holiday or not—if he did not use the familiar extravagant language that he has used over the years. Our quota last year for the area in the southern part of the North sea was 31 per cent. of last year's total catch of 68,000 tonnes. There is a possibility that, for various reasons, that will be reduced to 40,000 tonnes this year as a total allowable catch for everybody, but our quota of 31 per cent. will remain.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Norwegian trawlers fishing for herring in the North sea. They are allowed to do that, as I explained earlier. It is quite legal. Much of it is a one-off repayment for what has happened in the past. Next year the Norwegians will not need to claim a tonnage for that reason. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a report was produced before the Council of Ministers, following the meeting of the group of experts, suggesting that we should have a lower percentage of herring in the northern and middle parts of the North sea than was originally proposed by the Commission. We opposed that strongly. Indeed, the French and Belgians joined us in saying that that report was not a basis for discussion. As a consequence of the pressure that we brought to bear, the report was not pursued.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that—

Mr. Speaker: Time is getting on.

Mr. Buchan: Will our share of the total allowable catch be reduced to 15 per cent.—half of our original demand?

Mr. Jopling: There was speculation in the report about what might happen if the total allowable catch over the years increased because of the success of conservation. That was no surprise to us, and it has always been understood by us and by fishermen. It demonstrated that inbuilt adjustments would cause our percentage to decrease. The figure that was proposed was another reason why we were united in saying that the report was not a matter for discussion.

British Shipbuilders

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about British Shipbuilders.
As the House knows, British Shipbuilders has requested special help from the Government, to get orders in the current recession. We have had a number of discussions on this request with British Shipbuilders. As I told the House on 18 July, we need to have a clear strategic view of the position of British Shipbuilders. Too often in the past we have rushed into short-term measures. The chairman-designate, Mr. Graham Day, has been asked to formulate a plan for the long-term future of the business. I have told the present chairman that, while plans for the future of BS are being formulated, we are prepared to give consideration to specific requests for assistance on a case-by-case basis within international rules. The Government have applied to the European Commission for approval to an interim extension for intervention fund support until 31 October. Present intervention fund arrangements expire during July.
It is, however, also apparent that, in the current circumstances of the market, the present rate of intervention fund support is not sufficient to secure orders for BS. The Government have therefore decided, as an additional measure, to have urgent talks with the European Commission, with a view to securing approval for making an increased rate of intervention fund support available for a temporary period. These measures are justified by the very depressed state of the market. In 1982, world new orders fell by 20 per cent., and BS took the lowest level of new orders that it has ever recorded.
None the less, the very poor results that BS announced yesterday reflect not the current lack of orders, but losses incurred on orders in earlier years. Of the £117 million trading loss announced yesterday, a substantial amount—£94 million—is attributable to losses on four large contracts. This is a very disappointing set of results. The four individual contracts on which particularly large losses have been made during 1982–83 reflect very poor performance at some of the corporation's major yards.
As I have already made clear, however, some parts of BS are profitable. The Government remain firmly committed to privatising those activities as soon as possible.
The support that BS has had from the Government comes to it at the expense of other industries. British Shipbuilders must understand that it is operating in a fiercely competitive market, and that it cannot be insulated from that. The performance of BS, as revealed by its very poor results for 1982–83, must improve if the corporation is to survive.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I agree with the Minister of State that British Shipbuilders is facing a serious plight—in fact, a crisis. Does he agree that this is the worst shipbuilding recession on record, not only in Britain but throughout the world, and that there has been a world collapse of the industry? The workers in British shipyards are not to blame for that. To save British shipbuilding and for Britain to survive as a major maritime nation, direct Government intervention is needed. The

further measures connected with the European Commission intervention fund that he intends to discuss with the EC are unsuitable and inflexible, and will not do the job that needs to be done.
What action will the Government take to assist British Shipbuilders over the next crucial two years? What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that British orders are placed in British yards, in both the merchant and warship divisions? Will he intervene directly with British Gas, the CEGB and other similar industries to place forward orders now? I draw attention to written question No. 168, in the name of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) today:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his plans for the privatisation of British Shipbuilders in the light of its 1982–83 losses.
I hope that no action will be taken during the recess in the direction in which the Minister and the Government obviously want to move, because we are completely opposed to that.
Finally, will the Government give the highest priority to the maintenance of our shipping capacity? Britain has been a maritime nation throughout its history, and in our opinion must remain so.

Mr. Lamont: There is a serious recession in shipbuilding, as the right hon. Gentleman said—not the worst ever, but the worst since 1978 — and British Shipbuilders has received the lowest number of orders that it has received since it was created.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the workers were not to blame. I did not say that they were. Nevertheless, this Government have given massive support to British Shipbuilders. Since 1979, the Government have given it nearly £780 million worth of support. By no stretch of the imagination can that be considered as other than substantial support, which has to come from the taxpayer and from other industries.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that the intervention fund was the most suitable way to help British Shipbuilders. We have looked at other methods, including improved credit, and we believe that this is the best way to help the corporation to bridge what the right hon. Gentleman is always drawing to our attention—the difference between prices and costs in ships in this and other countries.
The right hon. Gentleman made little mention of the appalling losses on contracts that were taken three or four years ago. They have nothing to do with the current recession in shipbuilding. Over £90 million worth of losses have occurred in contracts that were taken several years ago. We as a Government cannot afford to go on funding losses at that rate. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are a maritime nation and that we have always had a shipbuilding industry. We cannot afford to go on subsidising shipbuilding with these losses.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about public sector orders. He knows, particularly in the light of certain controversial cases, that we are anxious to see that every opportunity is given to British Shipbuilders to tender for public sector orders.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to our plans for privatisation. I deliberately included that in my statement because I did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to be unaware of the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) which is along


the same lines as my statement. We intend to press ahead with the privatisation of those parts of British Shipbuilders that can be privatised and that are profitable.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree with the statement made by the chairman of British Shipbuilders in his annual report that
Far Eastern selling prices are admitted to be 15–20 per cent. below their costs."?
Does he and his Department accept that as a statement of the market position? If so, should more be done within the Council of Ministers in the EC? There are those who, under the old definition, would regard that as straight dumping.

Mr. Lamont: I cannot be exactly sure of the costs of far eastern producers, but we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that British Shipbuilders was not securing orders simply because other Governments were supporting their shipbuilding industries more than Britain. That is not so. Many countries do not have direct production subsidies as we do. We have both production subsidies and special credit arrangements to help British Shipbuilders. If we can obtain an increase in the intervention fund from the Commission, that would be the most suitable way to enable British Shipbuilders to obtain more orders, but the House should be under no illusion. There are few orders around and, whatever instrument is used, it will be difficult to get them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister assure me that the application to the Commission for approval for an interim extension in intervention fund support for British Shipbuilders will cover continued assistance to Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Lamont: Harland and Wolff will be associated with that application.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My hon. Friend has made a statement about British Shipbuilders' considerable losses over three or four years. Did those losses occur in Scottish shipyards, and what is the position of Scott Lithgow in the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, I regret, is not in his place at the moment? There have been serious problems in that shipyard for many years and it even went to the length of trying to build rigs. It has had difficulty not only with strikes but with bad man management. My hon. Friend will be aware that there is now new management in that yard. Does he hold out any hope that that yard will become successful in future?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. There have been management changes at Scott Lithgow. There will have to be a remarkable improvement in that yard's performance if it is to have hope of surviving. Out of the £94 million to which I referred, £73 million related to three contracts at Scott Lithgow—a BP tanker and two oil rigs, one for BP and one for Britoil.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Minister accept that privatisation is no solution to British Shipbuilders' problems? It will lead to a period of real instability and, inevitably, to heavy job losses in what remains of British Shipbuilders if the naval yards in particular are sold off. Will the hon. Gentleman give some assurance that he will think again about that? If Yarrows

is on his shopping list, I must warn him that that will be deeply resented on the Clyde and will be fiercely resisted by interests over a broad range of opinion.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says that privatisation is no solution. There was a time when Britain used to get a large number of export orders for warships. We have done better in the past than we are doing now and we believe that privatisation offers the best route for the future of our warship building. I do not see why it should do any harm to merchant shipbuilding. I do not believe that that should be supported on the back of warship building.

Mr. Frank Field: May I take the Minister back to his statement about the future of the warship yards which last year made handsome profits on the basis of Government orders paid for by the taxpayer? Does he agree that most taxpayers would prefer to see those profits go in conserving as much of the industry as possible rather than into the pockets of private investors? Will he assure the House that there will be no moves to privatise any of the industry until we begin to pull out of this horrendous recession?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not agree with that. We believe that private ownership is the best way to secure jobs and achieve maximum efficiency.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister has referred to the Government's intention to privatise the warship sector and other profitable parts of British Shipbuilders. Will he elaborate on what will happen to the remaining parts of the shipbuilding industry during this considerable depression? When he comes to take those decisions in conjunction with British Shipbuilders, will he bear in mind the social and economic burden that would be placed on depressed areas if yards were to be closed or jobs lost? Will he also bear in mind the long succession of his hon. Friends who congratulated the Secretary of State for Defence today on the awarding of lucrative defence contracts to the south of England?

Mr. Lamont: Of course, we shall take into account the social and employment consequences, as we always have done. That is why we have put £780 million into British Shipbuilders.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Minister tell the House what sense it makes to announce a proposal today to have a long-term plan—which I welcome—if he has already prejudged the situation by deciding to privatise sections of the industry before the results of that plan are announced? How many jobs will be lost as a result of the hon. Gentleman's statement today?

Mr. Lamont: I have said nothing new about privatisation and I do not see why the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited about it. What I have said about privatisation applies purely to warship building and those parts of it that could conceivably be sold. British Shipbuilders' main problem is in merchant shipbuilding and we are going to Brussels about that. It is for that that we want the increased intervention fund. We have asked Mr. Day to look at the structure of merchant shipbuilding simply because we cannot afford to have losses on this scale indefinitely.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister accept the point that the chairman highlights on page 10


of the annual report to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has drawn our attention? The chairman of British Shipbuilders identifies far eastern selling prices as being 15 to 20 per cent. below their costs. That will be a difficult problem for British Shipbuilders unless the hon. Gentleman takes a firm line with our partners in the EC, rather than asking for an increase in the intervention fund which will not mean very much to merchant shipbuilding.

Mr. Lamont: Labour Members keep returning to far eastern producers selling at 15 to 20 per cent. below cost. The hon. Gentleman seems to be conveniently ignoring the fact that every case to which the intervention fund has been applied means that there has been a direct subsidy of 17 per cent. to British shipbuilding. The intervention fund has had the effect of lowering our selling prices by 17 per cent. to make them competitive but we still have not been able to obtain orders. There is a difficult market but that is not the reason. I challenge any hon. Member to say that that is why we have had such appalling losses both at Scott Lithgow and Swan Hunter on one tanker order. A large part of our problem is our failure to build ships on time and to cost.

Mr. Orme: The Minister keeps using the figure of £780 million. Will he break that figure down and give us the details of how that money is spread out? He talks about losses at two of the major shipyards but does he agree that if the workers in those yards had worked last year for no wages at all the losses would still have been horrendous against the figures that he has given us? Is there not a major management failure in some of the shipbuilding areas? Does he not agree with some of my hon. Friends that there is no country that does not in some way or other subsidise its shipbuilding? It is no use the Minister using the argument that warship building is profitable and merchant shipbuilding is not. Every penny of warship development is paid for by the British taxpayer. That is why there are no losses. Merchant shipping is in a completely different position. We are talking here not just about warship development but about merchant shipping.

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the £780 million. The shipbuilding redundancy payment scheme accounts for £75 million; the intervention fund for £170 million; and the public dividend capital and the national loans fund for £534 million.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there were major management failures and spoke about the workers working for nothing. It is not for me to attribute the blame, but clearly there have been major failures. Of course, it has been difficult for British Shipbuilders to move into the offshore market and to try to grapple with a new type of technology and with products that it has not produced before. Nevertheless, the results have been most unfortunate.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was no shipbuilding industry in the world that was not subsidised. That is true. No member of the Government is trying to deny that. Taking our production subsidies and favourable credit terms together, we believe that our shipbuilding industry is as subsidised as any in the world and that if it becomes more efficient it will be well placed to obtain orders.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that the warship building side was profitable only because it was obtaining orders from the Ministry of Defence. Of course, it has the advantage that it is immune from the international competition that faces the merchant shipbuilding side. However, just as we believe that British Aerospace will have a better future and will become more efficient in the private sector, so we think that that solution is also appropriate for warship building.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to Mr. Day that the time cannot be long distant when the Government finally have to call a halt to pouring taxpayers' money into an industry which is making the losses that my hon. Friend has outlined, and which, regrettably, has little prospect of becoming profitable?

Mr. Lamont: The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is correct. Mr. Day is well aware of the great need to reduce the cost of the shipbuilding industry. The industry is going beyond the Government's funding ability.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Bruce Milan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns two written questions on page 646 of the Order Paper. Questions Nos. 159 and 161 are both addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and both are planted. I think that they both raise issues which are of concern to you, Mr. Speaker, in that you seek to protect the interests of hon. Members. Question No. 159 relates to selling council houses at a discount. There is existing legislation, but the Government have introduced a Bill which has not yet received its Second Reading, and which will not receive it until after the summer recess. Despite that, the answer given today anticipates the new legislation, overrides the existing legislation and, in effect, assumes that the new Bill will receive its Second Reading when it is debated in October.
Sometimes Ministers anticipate a Bill going on to the statute book once it has received its Second Reading, but in this case it is three months until the Bill will receive its Second Reading. A written answer has been sneaked through in an underhand and deceitful way just before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Ministers are treating the House with utter arrogance and contempt, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will say that the interests of hon. Members have not been protected, as they should have been, in that answer.
Question No. 161 is also addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and concerns his Department's cash limits for 1983–84. That written question was planted and the answer gives—if I may say so—rather inadequate information. A junior Minister at the Scottish Office has been holding a press conference this afternoon in Scotland, giving details that are not available to the House. I am sure that you take the same view, Mr. Speaker, as your predecessors, who have always said that Ministers should make their statements in the House and not at press conferences outside the House, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. I am glad that the Leader of the House has arrived in the Chamber, and I hope that one of his colleagues will relate the matter to him, so that he can comment. However, I am raising the issue with you, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns the protection afforded to hon. Members.
Both questions are examples of ministerial arrogance in the same Department. Ministers are treating the House with contempt. I wish to register the strongest possible protest, and ask you, accordingly, to protect hon. Members from such behaviour.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to associate myself with the comments by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan).
The Minister has exceeded his powers in question No. 159 in particular, and might be outwith those conferred by statute, and subject, consequently, to a report and investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The House and therefore you, Sir, as Speaker have some part to play in protecting Members of Parliament from such abuses.
In relation to question No. 161, I understand that an oral statement was made yesterday about England. It seems quite impertinent of the Secretary of State for Scotland or his junior Ministers to make statements by way of written answers, or press conferences elsewhere, when other Ministers have the courtesy to come forward and allow themselves to be interrogated and questioned by hon. Members.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the word "if" is very important in both of the questions. Question No. 159 asks:
if he will grant immediate discretionary powers".
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) is anticipating the Secretary of State's reply. It could be that the answer is no. I see nothing wrong in the question as long as the word "if" is used.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can deal with that point first. The written answer will have been released, I think, at 4 pm today. I heard the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) use the term "planted question" but I do not know exactly what it means. However, I should like to look into the issue that he raised about question No. 159. In response to his point about question No. 161, I think that hon. Members generally share the view that statements should be made in the House, rather than outside it.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for those comments. The Leader of the House is now in the Chamber. He did not hear the whole of my point of order and will be in some difficulty as a result. However, I hope that he will at least give us an undertaking that he will raise the subject with the Secretary of State for Scotland, particularly in the light of your comments, and that he will ensure that such behaviour does not recur. It is comtemptuous of the rights of Members of Parliament.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I was not here for the beginning of the points of order, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Local Government (Audit Practice)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move,
That the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
On 8 July, the Secretary of State laid before Parliament the code of local government audit practice for England and Wales required under the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Section 14 of that Act requires the Audit Commission to prepare a code—after consultation with the local authority associations and the accountancy profession — prescribing the way in which auditors employed or appointed by the commission should carry out their functions. The Act provides that the code shall not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Under the 1982 Act the Audit Commission — an independent body — has assumed responsibility for overseeing audit and monitoring audit standards in local government. This is a role which was formerly played by the audit inspectorate, which answered directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Under the previous arrangements, a local government audit code of practice was prepared and issued in 1973, in the form of an annexe to a departmental circular. This 1973 code was not, however, subject to parliamentary approval, although it was, I understand, lodged—before publication—in the Library of the House.
When we debated these new arrangements for local government audit, and before we voted to establish the Audit Commission, the point was made that the independence of the new commission was crucial to its success. It was to diminish these anxieties—expressed, for example, by a figure whom I shall miss from our debates, Mr. Ted Graham, the former hon. Member for Edmonton, and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) whom we shall not miss since he is ever-present—that the Government readily agreed that the code of audit practice should be subject to parliamentary approval. The debate today honours that commitment.
The code itself is the commission's code. It has been prepared by the commission, the members of which represent a wide range of interests in the public and private sector, and reflect wide experience of financial management relevant to the audit of local government accounts. It has been the subject of consultation, as required by the 1982 Act, with the bodies most directly concerned — local authority interests and the accountancy profession.
I believe that the House would be right to commend the urgency and thoroughness with which the commission has applied itself to the task of producing its code, which had to take account not only of the new arrangements for local government audit, but of the additional duties placed on auditors by the 1982 Act and, above all, the duty to consider value for money. Of course, since the 1973 code, there have been professional developments in audit practice and approach, in both the public and the private sectors.
As I have said, the code is the commission's code. My role is limited to honouring our commitment to bring it to

the House for consideration and, I hope, approval. None the less, it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly its main features. In doing so I shall draw attention to points which the commission itself regards as particularly important.
The introduction provides a general explanation of the reasons why the commission has framed the code as it has done. The main body of the code which follows is divided into two parts. The first sets out the general duties of the auditor, and, in conjunction with the appendix, prescribes how the auditor should communicate his findings to those legitimately concerned. The second prescribes the procedures which the auditor should observe in conducting his audit, and identifies matters to which he should pay particularly close attention in discharging his responsibilities in respect of fraud, corruption, and value for money.
In part 1 of the code, which is headed "General Duties of an Auditor", the commission identifies three factors which it believes should characterise the work of an auditor in local government. These are independence, due professional care and recognition of the public interest. It also sets out, in paragraph 6, what it describes as its "basic philosophy."
This philosophy stresses that special care and consideration apply to the audit of public funds financed by the compulsion inherent in the tax system. The auditor, says the code, must not stop at considering whether such funds have been legally spent and accounted for, but should also consider whether the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money have been spent in a way which provides value for money. The code makes it clear later, in paragraphs 26 and 43, that the auditor's role does not extend to questioning policies, but simply to examining whether policies have been effectively carried out.
In the last subsection of paragraph 6, the commission makes the important and useful point that auditors and the commission itself have a duty to see that knowledge of efficient ways of doing things is effectively transferred from one authority to another. This is in addition to trying to ensure a consistent approach to the process of audits itself.
The commission says that the auditor's job is to help the bodies which he is auditing to improve their performance. To do this, he must understand what they are trying to do, and he must co-operate with internal audit staff. None the less, the code is right to emphasise that the auditor must always remember his responsibilities to the public at large. If necessary, says the code, he must make public his criticisms, if that is the only alternative left to him.
In paragraph 7 the code turns to the first of the three factors which it identifies as the necessary characteristics of those who must audit public bodies—independence. The House was rightly concerned about this during its consideration of the Bill which became the 1982 Act. I have read the debates on the Bill. Anxieties were expressed about the potential conflict of interest which could arise if an authority's auditor were also to undertake consultancy work on behalf of the same authority at one and the same time. That matter was brought up by Mr. Christopher Price.
The code takes a clear and unequivocal stance on this. Paragraph 8 makes clear the commission's determination that the auditor's independence must prevail over any other considerations and must be demonstrable. The code


therefore rules that no appointed auditor—or his firm, or any organisation in which he has an interest—may undertake additional work for the authority of which he is auditor unless the work is so small in value as to be de minimis. In every other case, the auditor and authority must convince the commission both that there is no threat to the auditor's independence, and that the additional costs of using another firm would be excessive. Each individual such case will have to be argued before the commission separately. The commission will enforce this aspect of the code in its contracts with the firms which it appoints as auditors.
The second factor identified in part 1 of the code as a necessary requirement for auditors is that they must exercise due professional care. In paragraph 9 the code cites examples of the action that the auditor must take to fulfill this requirement, and emphasises the personal responsibility that an auditor retains even in circumstances where the work of audit has been shared with others.
The third factor which this part of the code highlights is the recognition of the public interest, and the special duty which the auditor owes to the public. Paragraphs 10 to 30 spell out clearly the duties which the auditor must discharge both in relation to the authority whose accounts he is auditing and to those to whom the authority is accountable.
As regards the auditor's responsibilities to the authority, the code makes a distinction between those routine matters which the auditor should try to resolve with officers during the course of the audit and at its conclusion, and those matters which are significant enough to be brought to the attention of the elected members. The code places particular emphasis on the need for the auditor to prepare a management letter for members of an authority and to seek a meeting with them to discuss and amplify the points raised. The importance which the commission attaches to the involvement of elected members is a new feature of this code when compared with the 1973 code.
The procedure whereby electors can inspect local authority accounts, and can question the auditor about items of those accounts and can make objections, is well established. It is reaffirmed in this code, which spells out in paragraphs 14 to 20 how the auditor should respond to such approaches by the public and how he should handle objections. It also spells out, in paragraphs 21 and 22, together with the appendix, how he should express his opinion on the accounts when he has concluded his audit.
Paragraphs 23 to 29 deal with the situation where, in the auditor's audit of the accounts—whether as a result of consideration of an objection or otherwise—he has found something sufficiently wrong to warrant his making a report in the public interest. A matter justifying such a report would by definition be one for which routine memoranda for officers or even a management letter for members were judged to be insufficient.
Paragraph 24 gives examples of the types of matters which might call for a report—for example:
Unnecessary expenditure or loss of income due to waste, extravagance, inefficient financial administration, poor value for money".
The code reminds us in paragraph 26 that, although an auditor should not be deflected from making a report because its subject matter is critical or unwelcome, it is not his function

to express his opinion as to the wisdom of particular decisions taken by councils in the lawful exercise of their discretion.
The auditor is not there to question policy. That is, the auditor cannot criticise a council for doing something foolish if it does it with its eyes open, in full possession of the facts. The auditor can show only how objectives set by councils could be more sensibly achieved.
Part 2 of the code, as I have already explained, deals with the procedures which the auditor should observe and identifies matters to which he should pay particularly close attention in guarding against fraud or corruption, and seeking to obtain value for money on behalf of the public. In framing this part of the code the commission has drawn heavily and sensibly on work already done by the professional accountancy bodies.
The code stresses that, in addition to their time-honoured and well-understood responsibility for vetting the legality and propriety of local authority expenditure, auditors have particular responsibilities in relation to fraud and corruption.
Finally, the code deals with the new value for money responsibilities specifically conferred on auditors by section 15(1)(c) of the 1982 Act. I think it would be helpful to the House if I were to remind it precisely what those responsibilities are. This section of the Act requires the auditor to satisfy himself
that the body whose accounts are being audited has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources".
The Government attach great importance to this new value for money responsibility of the auditor, and I am therefore pleased to see the prominence that the code of practice has given it.
Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the code states, for example:
In addition to the auditor's continuing responsibility to assess the legality and regularity of expenditure, the Commission emphasises the auditor's value for money responsibilities and requires auditors to demonstrate a value for money thrust to their audits. The auditor's concern that the authority has made proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness should influence him throughout his audit.
During the passage of the 1982 Act, the right hon. Members for Gorton and for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) expressed anxiety that the auditor's new value for money responsibilities should not be construed as giving him licence to question policy decisions legitimately taken by elected councils in the exercise of their discretion. As Government spokesmen have repeatedly made clear—my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport issued a public statement on this point during the passage of the Bill—that was never our intention; and explicit assurances to that effect were given in the House and outside.
The House will, I hope, be further reassured by what is said in paragraphs 40 to 44 of the commission's code. Paragraph 40 clearly defines the specific meaning to be given to the terms "economy", "efficiency", and "effectiveness" — terms which I have summarised as "value for money". The point was raised during the passage of the Bill that wider definitions might land the commission in trouble, but as the code states explicitly in paragraph 43—I repeat it so that there should be no chance of misunderstanding—
It is not the auditor's function to question policy".
It goes on to state:


It is, however, his responsibility both to consider the effects of policy and to examine the arrangements by which policy decisions are reached.
That is the right distinction to make, and one which quite properly separates the role of auditor from that of policy maker.
I hope the House can agree that the Audit Commission has produced a sensible and practical code, which avoids the pitfalls to which right hon. and hon. Members drew attention in the last Parliament. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. John McWilliam: I welcome the Minister's statement — indeed, I welcome it so much that it would have been pleasant to have had him with us on Standing Committee D when, during the last Parliament, we went through the tortuous exercise of dealing with part III of the then Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, or the "Local Government Finance (No. 9) Bill" as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) called it as it began to be amended fairly substantially.
The Minister was right to point out that the 1973 code was not subject to parliamentary approval. This code is subject to that approval. I applaud the fact that that was one of the amendments that Opposition Members managed to make. The code should be subject to parliamentary approval and I am not sure that, at the time the suggestions were being made for audit of local government, it was clear in the minds of Ministers what the role of an auditor should be. There appeared to be a suggestion in their minds that the role of auditors should be slightly different from the normal role and that perhaps they should interfere with policy.
Only because of the strenuous arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, by Mr. Ted Graham, by Mr. Christopher Price and others were the Government forced to see sense on this matter and to take account of the fact that local authorities are democratically elected in their own right. If democracy in local authorities is to continue, they must have the right to make their decisions on the basis of the policies of the majority of the elected councillors. I welcome the point that the Minister made on that matter during his statement. I do, however, wish to raise one or two points on the report.
The first arises from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the code which deals with the independence of auditors. What does the Audit Commission mean by
substantial financial interest direct or indirect"?
How substantial is "substantial"? This matter could be a little subjective. What might be "substantial" to some hon. Members might be mere pocket money to others. It would be helpful if the intention of the Audit Commission—I accept that it is not the Minister but the Audit Commission —was made clear.
On paragraph 8(a) and (b) the Minister made the point that the value of additional work should be "de minimis" —in other words, not more than £5,000 per year. There is a practice of firms of accountants being appointed as consultants to local authorities for various things. The value of such work is far from "de minimis", and I hope that the Minister will make it clear beyond peradventure than anyone appointed as a consultant to an audit body on that basis will be disbarred from auditing that local authority. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to make that commitment.
I welcome paragraph 15, which states:
The auditor should not admit questions on general matters such as the authority's policies, finances or procedures which are not about the actual accounts for the year to which the date referred to in paragraph 12 relates.
That paragraph is particularly important with regard to "policies". I was a commissioner for local authority accounts in Scotland. I have served on an Audit Commission. It is sobering to discover as an audit commissioner that one has limited privilege and that one could quite easily libel someone and be answerable for that libel. The auditors, except in the general sense of the limited privilege they have in exercising their profession, will be in exactly the same position. I welcome the Minister's words on this subject, but I should like to reinforce them on the point of privilege. I am not arguing that the auditors should have the same privilege as the Public Accounts Committee of this House —I do not think that they should. That aspect is a discipline to them when they are considering the issue of policy. It is also a useful discipline where auditors are tempted to object to accounts not because of the way they are formulated but on a non-democratic, unelected basis to affect the policies of a local authority which otherwise they could not affect. I welcome the clear and unequivocal assurance of the Minister about that.
On the point of public interest in paragraph 26, I welcome the unequivocal statement:
It is not, however, the function of the auditor to express his opinion as to the wisdom of particular decisions taken by councils in the lawful exercise of their discretion".
Indeed it is not. The auditors are appointed, not elected. They are answerable to the commission and, ultimately, to the Minister. They are not answerable to any groups of electors and the day we reach the point where local government is answerable to anybody but the electors will be the day when democracy dies, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that.
On value for money, paragraph 43 starts off in a fine way:
It is not the auditor's function to question policy
but there are some qualifications in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) and I hope that the Minister will comment on the effect of those.
The present Secretary of State for Transport said in a statement which was wrung out of him with great difficulty by Labour Members:
It can therefore be seen that the auditor's value-for-money functions are quite separate from any functions concerning illegality, and there is no question of it being part of the auditor's value-for-money function to form or express an opinion on what may be purely political aspects of a council's activities". — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 1982; c. 931.]
I welcomed that statement at the time. As I say, it was not an easy statement to get out of him, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton will testify to that. But it was vital in the sense of defending local government democracy, and I hope that the Minister will now say how much that statement is qualified by the qualifications in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph 43.
Why was the code of practice document not published by the Stationery Office? As it does not bear a price, how much does it cost and how available will it be to the ratepayers?

Mr. Derek Spencer: I am glad of this opportunity to address the House for the first time. I arrive here with a majority of seven votes. It is an exhilarating experience. I feel as though I have pitched my camp on the side of an abyss. I look out and the prospect is exciting, but at the same time it inculcates a proper sense of the laws of political gravity.
On 9 June the electors of Leicester, South put out one Yorkshireman and put in another. My predecessor, Jim Marshall, represented the constituency from October 1974, and he did so with the characteristics to be expected of someone who had the good fortune to be born under the white rose. He represented it with plain speaking and energy, and, as he dons his pads for his new venture, no doubt he will ruminate somewhat ruefully on the difference between a ball that shaves the off stump and the one that just clips it. I wish him well in his new endeavour and thank him on behalf of the people of Leicester, South.
Elections in Leicester, South can sometimes turn on very fine events, and I am not referring to a matter which will have interested hon. Members, that of absent voters on holiday. I am referring to two other matters, the first being voters who happen to be in hospital in the time leading up to the election.
In Leicester there were 400 patients in the Leicester general hospital during the time leading up to the date when applications for postal votes had to be made. An administrator in due course applied on their behalf for postal votes, the papers arrived and they were duly filled in. But they did not return to the returning officer until 20 minutes after the closing date, so they were disallowed. Another hospital in Leicester asked for papers for people to vote by post, and although it was sent a number, they were never returned. A third hospital did not even bother to ask.
But it was not there that the chance events ended. They went even further and related to the mechanics of voting, which in a number of respects are still lodged in the horse and buggy days, for in respect of the perforations which must be on the ballot paper a strange situation occurred in Leicester, South. In one of the recounts—at about 4 o'clock in the morning—the agent for the Labour party quite properly asked that the ballot papers should be scrutinised for perforation marks. So they were held up —all 55,000 of them—and it took a considerable time, rather like checking bank notes, although by that time enough was known about the likely outcome of the election for us to attach to them a value much greater than any bank note.
When that exercise had been performed to everybody's satisfaction it was found that 46 of the papers did not have a perforation mark and therefore were declared invalid. Of those, 27 had been cast in my favour and 19 for Jim Marshall. In other words, there was a difference between us of eight in respect of disqualified papers. If those papers had been valid and the figures had been the other way round, hon. Members would be listening to a familiar voice now. If they had not been cast away, I would have more than doubled my majority at a blow.
The Leicester, South which I inherited from Jim Marshall is rather different from the Leicester, South which he inherited from Lord Boardman in the autumn of 1974. The noble Lord is still remembered with affection in this House and I pay tribute to him on behalf not only

of the electors of Leicester, South but of the whole of greater Leicester for the public service he has rendered for many years and for the help he gave me in the months leading up to the general election.
It is right that I should speak of Leicester as a city of enterprise and religious toleration. It has historically been a city of both, and in recent times there has been added to it a new dimension, in terms both of enterprise and of religious toleration.
Those who have been in this place before will be no strangers to the composition of the electorate in Leicester, South. About 27 per cent. of the electorate is Asian in origin. The members of the Asian community came to south Leicester, for the most part, during the past 10 years. Some of them came as refugees from Uganda. Some came in spite of the efforts that were made by the Labour group on the city council to direct them elsewhere by placing an advertisement in the Kampala Times that stated that Leicester was full, its resources would not allow it to take any more immigrants, and that those who planned to go to Leicester should go elsewhere. There was no greater signpost to Leicester as a haven of rest and refuge for those seeking it, and consequently they came in large numbers.
These people added to the small businesses that were already there by the businesses that they brought with them. They have had the same difficulty in setting up and maintaining their small businesses as the host community has had in the face of the high and sometimes unconscionable rate levels that have been levied by a Labour city council. The reaction to rate levels of that type knows no bounds in culture nor in background. There has been a welcome for such measures as have been introduced by the Government in the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982 and consequently in the code of practice that is before us.
The enterprise that the Asian community has shown in setting up its businesses alongside existing businesses and contributing significantly to employment opportunities in the city is to be found in another area. Its enterprise is not limited to business; it extends also to education. In 1981, Councillor Michael Cufflin and a number of friends set up a new grammar school in the tradition of the great Elizabethan grammar schools, one of which I had the honour to attend, and so many of which, if they have not escaped into the private sector, have been destroyed, lamentably, by the Labour party. Michael Cufflin, together with a number of colleagues, established a new grammar school in Leicester. It is prospering and it will prosper. It is heavily over-subscribed.
The efforts of Michael Cufflin and his friends have been matched by the Asian community. It too, despairing of the effects of compulsory comprehensive education upon its culture, has turned away from it, and a number of Moslems attached to the Asfordby street mosque have set up a secondary school for girls to ensure that their culture prospers.
Leicester has also shown a good example in religious toleration. Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Moslem mosques now dot the landscape, together with the synagogue which has been there for most of the century. The Ukrainian church is in another part of Leicester. In travelling across south Leicester one moves, in effect, across half the face of the world. Those who talk about a somewhat narrow approach to Britain's culture and religion would find it a salutary journey.
Having taken that journey, I turn to the motion via the place where I spent about five years before my arrival in this place—the town hall in the London borough of Camden where I spent the early hours of many mornings. I was often there at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning—shades of things to come. At full council meetings in Camden there has been, until very recently, no guillotine and no time limit upon debate. As I spent my time there, far from agreeing with the words of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) about councillors apparently being answerable to the local electors, I concluded that they were answerable to no one. Far from implementing the policies on which they had been elected by the local electorate, they were using all their energies in repealing the policy of central Government and sending the ratepayer the bill. Consequently, I decided to have recourse to the district auditor. I complained to him no fewer than 17 times when I became the deputy leader of the Tory group.
The complaints went to the district auditor regularly and he acknowledged them. The months ticked by and from this watchdog of the public purse there was not even a snarl, not even a baring of teeth. I despaired of any action being taken and then one day, quite suddenly, he took me and the Labour group entirely by surprise. Without any warning he leapt forward, figuratively, and grasped them by the collar, sank his teeth in and carried them off kicking and squealing into the High Court. He alleged by way of repetition of an argument that I had put before him that a settlement which the council had entered into of the dirty jobs strike in the winter of discontent, which no doubt has not entirely disappeared from the recollection of Labour Members, was unlawful on the ground that the council had broken national ranks, caved in and paid up to their friends in the trade union movement without bona fide negotiations. That argument was placed by the district auditor in front of the High Court.
The contrary argument was: "We were negotiating bona fide in the teeth of a legitimate industrial dispute. We may have paid more than other boroughs did, but we were acting honestly." They might have said under their breath, "We acted honestly even if we acted a little foolishly and with not too much steel." That was the argument of the Labour councillors. After many months the High Court declared in April 1982 that the councillors had not acted unlawfully.
That experience showed, for anybody who cared to consider it, how unsatisfactory was the system as it then stood. It gave no effective redress to the ratepayer and it involved the councillors in a long-drawn-out wrangle, during which time they wept crocodile tears and alleged that they might lose their homes. They complained that they were being treated harshly and that they had merely carried out the policy that they had been elected to implement.
The House may think that it was an unsatisfactory state of affairs from both points of view. So I welcomed the contents of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act and looked forward to something which would have teeth. If my optimism increased momentarily, it was quelled by what I heard from the hon. Member for Blaydon, especially when he said that the code of practice received almost the unequivocal blessing of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). That statement

cannot be construed as a compliment in places where ratepayers are anxious to see that their interests are protected fully.
That situation applies as much in Leicester as in Camden or elsewhere. The code of practice and the enabling Act give the Minister powers to keep those matters under review. If the teeth that have been planted by the code of practice prove to be long enough, so much the better. It may be that the new Audit Commission and the new auditors will have learned their lessons in the light of what has happened. Perhaps an early snarl and an early growl will do the job. That will be a better approach than docilely doing nothing for a long period and then suddenly taking what may be criticised as draconian action.
I hope that the new commission will exercise its powers early and gently rather than late and fiercely. If that happens, some of the fears that I harbour about the code of practice will turn out to be misplaced. The hon. Member for Blaydon referred to paragraph 26 of the code of practice which might confirm one's misgivings. It states:
The auditor should not be deflected from making a report because its subject matter is critical or unwelcome
The new auditors who are the inheritors of the district audit function, whether they have moved from the public sector or are coming from the private sector, will walk in a field which will cause them to be subjected to unwelcome and party political criticism. That should be made known. The attempt to put steel into the spine, where it is feared that there is and will be none, is a defensive posture, which I do not entirely applaud. Perhaps my fears will not be borne out by events.
I welcome the code of practice, as far as it goes, and on behalf of the citizens of Leicester, South I shall keep it closly under review.
It has been said that all political careers end in tears—perhaps that is an exaggeration which is typical of the warp and weft of modern political life. Within a short time of my arrival in Parliament I heard a not-so-private sob of anguish. Perhaps there are still tears of disappointment drying in the eyes of some people who thought that they were in safe Labour seats. I hope that, when it is my time to leave Parliament, I leave as I came—with a smile.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: It is a pleasure to follow a new Member as fluent as the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). Although I have no doubt that he would not expect all Opposition Members to agree entirely with his rather one-sided views on democracy, it is a pleasure to say that I, for one, envy him the sense of humour which he introduced during his maiden speech.
The hon. Gentleman seems to equate efficiency entirely with financial economy rather than with other considerations. However, that is something to which we shall perhaps come later. I appreciated the fact that he chose to make a maiden speech during a debate about the Audit Commission, when plainly his votes in Leicester, South were audited carefully. We look forward to hearing him in the future.
It is accepted by both sides of the House and in local government that the code is entirely professional. I wish to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Mc William) and ask the Minister about some technical problems. I hope that he will be able to set at rest some of our anxieties about them.
The first is the anxiety felt in local government about the flexibility of the appointment of auditors. There has been little interference in the appointment of auditors. There have been some threats about it, but so far they have not been carried out. Local government is worried that ideological considerations may rule in future. Whichever party is in power, we shall have the district or professional auditor and the same balance will not be maintained. The mix so far has been healthy and it will be a shame to upset that by imposing upon local government an arbitrary way of determining which kind of auditor it has.
My second point relates to fees. If one of the Audit Commission's aims is to make local government more efficient and enable it to function more economically, it is strange that local government will not know in advance what fee it will have to pay for its audit. It has previously been able to determine what the final price will be because a fee has been laid down for each task. Thirdly, I commend the fact that the report recommends the separation between the consultancy side of the audit and the carrying out of the audit.
I wish also to deal with the principles of approach. First, there is the treacherous subject of unit costs. If one believes that unit costs can magically determine whether a service is efficient, one enters the argument about the rate support grant and the way different factors are determined for different kinds of authority. Given the different types of local authorities, their different geography, sociological backgrounds and kinds of services they wish to offer, it is extremely difficult to measure one cost against another within the authority or with other authorities.
I accept that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has done a great deal of work to provide guidelines to enable local authorities to compare costs themselves. It is fallacious to suggest that the Audit Commission will enable local authorities to compare unit costs on a fair basis. It would give rise to considerable bitterness if it were to lead to other kinds of imposition.
That leads logically to the problem of external and internal audit. One of local government's fears is that the Audit Commission's powers, and the way in which they will be carried out will create the risk of duplicating local government's internal audit functions. Even with the pressures that the Government impose on local government, I do not believe that there is one local authority, including Camden, which would not wish to make its services and administration as efficient as possible. It is clearly in their interests to do so.
The best authorities have the best internal audit and try always to see that they are not just avoiding corruption and maladministration, but are trying to find the best way to secure value for money. If the way in which the system is devised tends to duplicate that, that almost downgrades the professional skills and the precise task of the internal auditors. That would be a great shame. One would then be trespassing on the question of how to secure the best performance of an authority in its services as opposed to its best audited function. Those are two different things.
Efficiency is not necessarily measured by whether the local authority's performance is right. It is measured in terms of how one wants to achieve a service and what result one wants to achieve through the service as opposed to its fiscal nature and whether the best system is being

used for carrying it out. It is not possible to make a distinction between the audit function as traditionally understood and the policy that the Minister suggested. For example, many authorities have a review committee. It looks across departmental boundaries and committee boundaries to see whether, for example, transportation in the authority is carried out effectively. Vast amounts of money are spent on it, and the committee tries to see whether things could be done differently. It might consider whether the provision of other communications is done effectively.
If the Audit Commission's proposal impinges too much on such an internal audit, I suspect that it will have the opposite effect from what the Government wish. In other words, it will make less efficient the local authority's efforts to secure the best delivery of services in its neighbourhood. Cost benefit analysis and examination of the systems are important. At the end of the day performance review is in the province of the local authority.
Finally, there is the question of how one judges the effectiveness under the code. The worry is that only what the Government think is effective will be regarded as the final arbiter. The Audit Commission is comprised of Government appointees. The alternative is to try to maintain a better balance between the Audit Commission, with its Government appointees, and the electors in the local authority's area.
It is significant that the consultation paper which the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office issued in July 1981 states precisely the view that the Liberal party would hold. It rehearsed the arguments for taking into account the Public Accounts Committee suggestion
that District Audit should form part of a new national audit office under the Comptroller and Auditor General, who would report to Parliament".
The paper then states:
In the Government's view this would bring local authorities into a relationship with Parliament which was fundamentally inconsistent with their constitutional position, confusing their line of accountability at a time when the Government's aim is to strengthen their accountability in the direction in which it constitutionally lies, to their electors.
If that is so, it runs counter to much of what we have heard in the Chamber about the Government's imposition on Scottish local authorities, which I know is outwith the provisions, but the theme is the same. Those local authorities are having to determine accountability by criteria laid down by the Government. There is a fear about the way in which Government appointees are put on to the Audit Commission.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South referred to Camden's accountability. One of the difficulties is that most of the authorities that make hackles rise on Conservative Benches, because of their style of government, the spending in which they indulge or other bizarre things about which Conservative Members complain, do not have annual elections. In the Greater London council, the leader during the election was replaced immediately afterwards. There is no way of changing that administration for four years. It is the same with Camden.
If one wishes to have the accountability that the consultation paper suggests, one way to do it is to get away from a local authority being elected for four years. It would be a darned sight more accountable if there were an


annual election with an annual verdict on the authority's performance. That happens in the district authorities. I suspect that that makes them more accountable.

Dr. John Marek: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing along those lines, would he advocate annual elections for the House of Commons?

Mr. Meadowcroft: That is the only demand of the famous charter that has not been implemented. I would not argue that simply because the House can project its income and expenditure for longer than one year, but local government is not permitted by law to do so. Local government has to raise expenditure on a year-to-year basis, which does not apply to the House. Hence, there is a considerable constitutional difference.
Compared with the Government's attitude on rating, the success of the Audit Commission will depend to a large extent on the Government's relationship with local government. If the Government undermine the relationship with the local authorities in the way in which they seem to be determined on, no provisions of the Audit Commission, however professional, will be accepted as totally fair. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind, as that delicate relationship can easily be undermined to the detriment of both the Government and local authorities.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was concerned that the Audit Commission would not be independent of the Government and that it would be the creature of the Government when it came to the determination of effectiveness. The underlying principle of part III of the Local Government Act 1972 was that it should be independent. It is considerably more independent than the district audit service ever was because it was a part of the Department of the Environment. That is the whole point of part III of the Act.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about the distinction between policy and questioning the merits of policy decisions which is also a concern of the official Opposition. I should have thought that the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Minister and the clear statements in the code of practice would have laid that doubt to rest. There is nothing new about value for money audits in Government. The Comptroller and Auditor General, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, has undertaken value for money work for many years. The distinction is clear. It is made by the Public Accounts Committee, which understands the difference between the merits of policy and the arrangements that are made for securing value for money.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) on his maiden speech. He said that he had a majority of just seven votes. When I first came to the House I had a majority of about 40 times that. I shall not tell my hon. Friend what happened to me subsequently. Now that the electors of Leicester, South have had the good sense to elect a Conservative Member, and in the light of his speech, there is no doubt that next time his majority will be not seven, but 7,000. We shall value very much the benefit of his experience of local government in Camden. I am glad that I have never been a member of the opposition on Camden council, having to

sit up until 4 am listening to its wild ideas. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to try to prevent some of those ideas from reaching fruition. He made an excellent maiden speech.
I welcome the code as a further step towards the improvement of the quality of local government audit. I have an indirect interest, because I am the parliamentary consultant to the Consultative Committee of the Accountancy Bodies, which is referred to in the introduction to the code and elsewhere. Considerable emphasis is laid on work that has already been done by the Auditing Practices Committee.
I have discussed the work that has been done by the Audit Commission with many private firms that are interested in that work. I can report that all of them believe that the Audit Commission has been commendably fair in the way in which it has dealt with them over the past few weeks and months. I understand that considerable progress has been made with appointments, although no public announcement has been made. A third of the financial year 1983–84 has already elapsed. When will appointments of auditors to local authorities be announced for the current financial year? The Local Government Finance Act requires some consultation with the relevant authorities on this. What consultation will have taken place?
Can the Minister say what proportion of audits the Audit Commission hopes to allocate to private firms this financial year? I am advised that it will be about 30 per cent. Can he also say what proportion the Audit Commission will allocate to private firms in future years? Is there a target of 50 per cent. or something similar?
What criteria are being used to select the private firms of auditors and how much reliance is placed on their past track records? Some firms have limited experience of local government audits but some experience in other parts of the public sector. How much reliance is placed on the formal presentation of their proposals?
The object of part III of the Act is to improve the quality of audit and the code of practice is fundamental in achieving that goal. I understand that the code will apply equally to all auditors, be they drawn from what was the district audit service or from private firms. The commission's basic philosophy is clearly set out in paragraph 6 of the code, which will be particularly helpful in giving auditors a clear understanding of what they are seeking to achieve. I did not, however, fully understand the second sentence of subparagraph (a). It states that the auditor
must satisfy himself as to the legality of items of account"—
that is quite clear—
and that in compiling the accounts different sections of the public whose interests may be affected by them have been fairly treated.
I am not sure what that means in practice.
The Act places great emphasis on what have become known as the three Es — economy, efficiency and effectiveness—and emphasis is rightly placed on them in the introduction to the code. I am surprised, however, that only four paragraphs of the code are devoted to the subject as it is a new field. I believe that that constitutes a slight imbalance.
Paragraphs 40 to 44 of the code give clear guidance to auditors. The distinction between the merits of policy, which are dealt with in paragraph 43, and the detailed matters listed in that paragraph seems quite clear. The hon.


Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said that they were qualifications, but I do not think that they are. Paragraph 43 clearly states:
It is not the auditor's function to question policy".
The auditor must consider how policy is arrived at and examine whether the authority has taken into account all facts available to it in reaching decisions. The auditor should also consider other aspects, but not the merits of the policy decision. I believe that that is a clear distinction.
Value for money audits can be approached in a variety of ways. Traditionally, the Comptroller and Auditor General has adopted a policy of examining specific transactions. Normally he examines large Government transactions—such as the construction of a hospital—which involve substantial sums of public money, and examines them in detail for cost overruns and so on. I believe that that has been at the behest of the Public Accounts Committee rather than the policy of the Comptroller and Auditor General himself. The PAC has always tended to look at transactions with a certain political sex appeal.
A more rational way of approaching a value for money audit is to adopt a systems approach, as this code of practice advocates. Instead of looking at particular transactions undertaken by central or local government, the auditors should examine the arrangements which underlie policy decisions. That is what value for money audits should be about, and the points raised in paragraph 42 refer to that approach.
The second sentence in paragraph 42 causes me some concern. It states:
The auditor will take those examples of good practice and examine how far they can be applied to the authority under review.
What does that mean? It could mean that the Audit Commission will use auditors to try to impose a model or an ideal solution on certain authorities. Having examined various authorities, it may decide on a model solution and try to impose it on local authorities. That would be a mistake, as circumstances differ very much between one authority and another. The auditor should be allowed to use his own judgment in individual cases but should consider what happens in similar circumstances in different authorities.
I hope and believe that this experiment will be a great success. As long as expectations of what auditors can achieve in financial irregularity audits or value for money audits are not too high, the code will be a success. I commend the Audit Commission for its enthusiasm and determination to make it so.
If the code is successful, the Government should consider adding the audit of health authorities to the responsibilities of the Audit Commission, as I think that they would benefit from a similar approach. A limited experiment of auditing health authorities was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services. That experiment involved a dozen or so district health authorities and private auditors. That scheme could be extended and brought within the ambit of the Audit Commission. I believe that the health authorities would benefit from the advice, guidance and assistance that the commission could give.
I welcome the code of practice for local government audits and I wish it well.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Many years ago when I was a member of the Clay Cross local authority, one of the problems that I and many of my Labour colleagues came up against when trying to get our policies through the council was being told that our policy objectives would not get through because the auditor would intervene and a surcharge might follow. I welcome the new code in that it prevents the district auditor from intervening in policy objectives.
In 1970, the Clay Cross local authority decided to rebuild a large number of slums which had relatively low rents. We wanted to ensure that when the people were rehoused they did not have to pay double, treble or in some cases many more times their original rent.
When I arrived in Parliament in 1971, I well recall having to face the district auditor as I was a member of Clay Cross council the previous year and the council had had the audacity to carry out the mandate of the electorate. In all the local council elections in which I was involved the Labour party had gone forward on a low rent policy. The money allocated from the general rate to the housing revenue account was about 18 per cent. We believed that it was right and proper for us to go forward with a low rent policy. That policy was then challenged by two people who had failed to get elected to the council and who decided to have a second bite at the cherry by invoking the district auditor.
One Monday, I had to make the trip from here to Clay Cross to meet the district auditor with my fellow councillors simply because we had been carrying out our low rent policy. Only as a result of showing comparisons between Clay Cross, some London boroughs and some Labour-controlled authorities in Wales which also made large contributions to the housing revenue account from the general rate fund were we saved from surcharge. If I had been surcharged I would have been declared bankrupt, and I suppose the House would have missed me for the past 13 years. Then again, it might not.
Having escaped from that political interference by the auditor, I quickly took the view that things had to be changed so that it would be made clear to auditors that their job is to ensure that the accounts are right. Auditors are employed to make sure that the books balance. Of course, they must also ensure that the accounts are right and proper and that money has not been spent as it should not have been. We made a policy decision to subsidise rent and it was wrong for the auditor to encroach on that territory and almost be able to declare the 11 Labour councillors bankrupt.
The problem did not end there because not long afterwards the Clay Cross council decided to do several other things. As I was in Parliament I had by then relinquished my seat on the council. The council took on the Tory Government's Housing Finance Act 1972. That is all history now, but does the Minister agree that if the code of practice had been in force then all the turmoil in Clay Cross would not have occurred?
The councillors were simply going to the people of Clay Cross and saying, "This is our policy. We do not believe that the Tory Government should interfere in the democratic functions of local authorities. We have a mandate to carry out our policies." We now have another


Tory Government who are interfering in the democratic functions of local authorities. However, the district auditor was involved again. He surcharged the 11 Clay Cross councillors for carrying out their policy of keeping down the rents of several hundred people who lived in council houses. The councillors also decided to employ more people—not an enormous number, but a mere handful. It is only a small urban district council.
There had been a horrific disaster at Markham colliery just up the road near Chesterfield. It was the first time in the living memory of many people that a pit cage had fallen several hundred feet down a shaft, killing many miners. As it was not a run-of-the-mill accident, many miners felt that if the cage was not safe they did not want to go down the pit again. As a matter of compassion, Clay Cross council decided to allow a few of those Markham miners to become part of the council staff, to fill badly-needed posts.
The Clay Cross councillors were surcharged for employing too many people. For implementing the low-rent policy and for employing more people, the councillors were surcharged about £60,000. They have been kept out of local government ever since. Now, 11 years later, we have a code of practice that allows local authorities to decide what their policy objectives will be. The auditor is confined to ensuring that the books are correct and that money is not spent improperly. He must keep clear of the policy objectives that are proposed by the council.
Local authorities might decide to provide money to subsidise bus fares. South Yorkshire has a wonderful transport policy and bus fares there are the lowest in the country. There can be no doubt that that council has always faced the possibility of the district auditor deciding, on purely political grounds—not because the books do not balance—that he must surcharge it. The code of conduct sets out the auditor's job.
I welcome local authorities, especially Labour-controlled authorities, being able to carry out the policies for which they have a mandate. One of the major grouses has been that district auditors have been able to tell authorities that they are spending too much and that they must stop doing so or they will be surcharged. District auditors have never interfered with Tory-controlled authorities that are more interested in cutting services.
Socialists feel that it is important to increase the number of home helps and to spend more money on the mentally handicapped, the social services department and the old people—Clay Cross provides them with free television licences—whereas Tories cut and carve and take money away from pensioners, the disabled and the handicapped. The district auditor has always been a tool of the establishment in that he clamps down only on authorities that spend money on deserving cases even though they have a mandate to do so. I welcome the code of practice to the extent that it will help authorities that are prepared to look after the old and the disabled.
The code of practice will leave a sour taste in the mouths of the 11 Clay Cross ex-councillors who were made bankrupt because they kept down rents and employed more people. Despite having been discharged from bankruptcy 12 months ago, they still have another four years before they will be allowed to serve in local government. They were never found to be doing anything wrong. Moreover, 72 per cent. of the electorate supported their low rent policy. That is a bigger majority than many Tory Members have.
Progress has come much later than it should have done. The tragedy is that when we were in office between 1974 and 1979 or, to put it more appropriately, when the Labour Government were in office, Labour did not have the guts to introduce such a code of conduct and allow those councillors to serve in local government once again.
I am not asking for retrospective legislation but, before the House returns on 24 October, the Minister should have a word with his colleagues and suggest that the 11 ex-councillors at Clay Cross who are still not allowed to serve in local government should have that ban lifted. Under the proposed system they would never have been surcharged. As the code will be accepted without a Division, those ex-councillors should be allowed back into local government without having to wait another four years.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: As the Minister rightly said, the heart of this matter is value for money, which is nothing new. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) referred to the good work that is done by many performance review committees. I commend too the voluntary publication of such works as the good practice notes by the Association of District Councils and other local authority associations. However, it is new to put value for money in such specific terms as a remit for the district auditor or the approved auditor. To central Government, value for money is a valid consideration, because the Government wish to ensure that they get value for money for the large amounts of rate support grant that they give to local authorities. Given the constraints on public expenditure, they must ensure that they get value for money within the total.
I am worried that we shall not obtain demonstrable value for money from some local authority services. It is all very well for the district auditor to be given a remit to consider the best ways of achieving economy and efficiency, but the only real way of doing that is to subject services to competition. The hon. Member for Leeds, West was right to draw our attention to the deficiencies of comparisons of unit costs, because one is trying to compare the services in one authority with those in another, and the hon. Member rightly said that geographical and other variables made such a comparison difficult.
The best way to compare the possible costs to local authorities is to draw up a proper detailed specification and to invite tenders against it. I hope that that is what is meant in paragraph 43(c) where the district auditor is instructed to consider
whether there are satisfactory arrangements for considering alternative options, including the identification, selection and evaluation of such options.
It is not just a matter of seeking value for money through direct competition. One problem that has cropped up for many years is that where unfair contractual practices are applied by local authorities, such as saying that private contractors cannot get on to tender lists unless they fulfil some political requirements, it is difficult to prove to the district auditor that a financial loss may have been incurred by the local authority. If there is no competition one cannot prove that it would not have been good value for money.
I am also anxious about corrupt practices. The report deals in considerable detail with the practices that we normally regard as corrupt, but I mention local authorities such as Darlington, Harlow and Stirling, which advertise


all their job vacancies in Labour Weekly. That must have one of two objectives—either to recruit Socialists for employment or covertly to supply funds to the Labour party. Could the district auditor investigate such practices? If not, there is a clear case for some amendments to the code.
We are all concerned with value for money, but I am convinced that the only way in which we can achieve it is with above-board competitive practices. I hope that that will be the primary remit drawn by the district auditor from the code of practice.

Mr. Michael Knowles: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, especially about the independence of local government. I should have been glad of his support when I was leader of Kingston council when we were fighting off endless attempts by the Labour Government to force us to make our schools comprehensives. They were totally unsuccessful, and Kingston remains the only local authority with grammar schools and secondary schools, but no comprehensive schools. Local councils can win such battles if they box clever, but if they take on Governments direct they are likely to lose.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) mentioned internal audits, but the difficulty with them is that many councils are fairly small and the staff are necessarily drawn from the finance departments. They are not independent. When they pursue their careers, they may wish to return to the mainstream of the financial side of councils, so the fear must be that occasionally they will pull their punches. I examined a system for setting up a police force composed of internal auditors, corporate planners and school inspectors, but that was not workable. We need a powerful outside audit, and the concept of the commission is right.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his remarks downgrade the honourable part that is played in local government by internal auditors, who will be upset to hear that they are the lackeys of the finance departments, not least because on many occasions they investigate finance departments?

Mr. Knowles: We must recognise that there will be a conflict. If one speaks frankly to officers of finance departments and audit departments, they readily admit the fact. The problem is appreciated and it is no criticism of them to say that it exists. The problem is built into the system; it is not the fault of the individual.
One weakness of local government has been that in many authorities, no matter how well run, people do not compare notes and pass on their experience. There is much re-inventing of the wheel, so if the commission passes on the best practices in local government from one authority to another it will have served a useful purpose. I support the use of outside auditors. Kingston was the first authority to use them, and the commercial experience that we gained was useful in helping us to tighten up systems in the council. It was a two-way process, because the auditors had not worked in local government previously and had some ideas that simply would not work. There was a two-way flow between the private and the public sectors, which must be healthy for Britain in the long run.
We need an independent outside commission, simply because public money must be closely accounted for. This proposal will serve that purpose, and I shall support it.

Mr. McWilliam: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) on his maiden speech. I enjoyed his dry wit. I cannot say that I was delighted that he beat an old personal as well as political friend of mine, but I am sure that he will be an asset to the House, not least because he brings to it extensive local government experience, albeit unsuccessful experience of auditors and the High Court. I also congratulate him on making his maiden speech on a technical, dry and demanding subject, and I commend his bravery in doing it and in sticking to the point of the debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was anxious about the appointment of members of the Audit Commission. I was appointed to the Audit Commission for Scotland—the Commission for Local Authority Accounts — by a Conservative Secretary of State on the basis that I had been the city treasurer of Edinburgh. I made it clear to him that I would not continue in local government, and therefore took on the role of poacher turned gamekeeper. There is nothing wrong with that, and I expect such things to continue regardless of what Government are in power. We want the most knowledgeable and experienced people on these commissions, as I am sure the whole House will agree.
Coming from a Scottish background and a Scottish local authority, I know that the annual basis for local authority elections does not work in quite the way suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. His point about the House being able to finance itself for more than a year at a time is quite wrong. Finance Bills lapse annually; that is one of the important controls that back Benchers have over the Executive, regardless of the Executive's political complexion.
I remind the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) of what I said about privilege. The difference between the Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee is that the PAC enjoys the privilege of this House. It can say what it likes about anybody and anything and not suffer the consequences. The Audit Commission will only have privilege limited to the normal professional privilege of auditors. By that very definition, it will have to be more circumspect than the PAC.
It is therefore necessary that the value for money function of the commission should be restricted by paragraphs 26 and 43, which make it clear that it should not go down the path of sin by getting involved in political controversy. That point was picked up effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
I cannot go all the way with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that competition solves everything. When talking about areas that are effectively local monopolies, competition, while an interesting concept, cannot be held in all circumstances to solve all problems. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point.
I hope that all local authorities will advertise in all newspapers, be it Labour Weekly, the Conservative whatsit— [HON. MEMBERS: "Newsline".]—and so on. Advertising should be spread as widely as possible and should not be withheld from newspapers simply because they take a political view that is anathema to the political


party that has local authority control. As Labour Weekly is a registered newspaper, it is as good an organ for advertising as any other.
I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) that the then Secretary of State for Education and Science did not take him to court, which is not as severe as what happened to the colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I accept that Governments twist arms, but it is better that such actions by central Government should be done by persuasion rather than coercion. That is our philosophy, and we shall continue to argue it.
On local government finance, the hon. Gentleman said that we must be like Caesar's wife. As a former treasurer of the city of Edinburgh, I could not agree more. As a commissioner for local authority accounts in Scotland, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as well as ensuring that the external audit was properly conducted, we criticised any local authority that did not have a good internal and independent audit system. As city treasurer, I would have been annoyed had my internal audit department not felt free to be as embarrassing to anybody as it wanted, so long as it was trying to obtain the truth. I am sure that that will also find support throughout the House.
This has been an interesting debate on a narrow and technical subject that is sometimes considered boring. I find it fascinating. It concerns one of the most important things that we do in the House, and I have enjoyed the debate.

Mr. Waldegrave: This is the third debate that I have introduced, and I have yet to have the Opposition vote against me. This is a dangerous precedent that could get me into trouble with the Conservative Back Benches. I agree that some of the issues involved in this subject are important and interesting, and this has been a good and useful debate.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) spoke of the quality and kind of person to be appointed to the Audit Commission. I hope that I can lay at rest any worries that this will be done, either by this Government or any other, on a political basis. The hon. Gentleman will know that among the present membership are Mr. Geoffrey Drain and Mr. John Gunnell, who on the whole support the Labour party. I have no doubt that, were the Labour party ever to come back to power at some far distant date, it would honour the commitment to appoint people on their merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and others spoke of obtaining value for money as one of the duties of the Audit Commission. We are merely developing past policy. This is not a revolutionary new concept in public auditing. My hon. Friend referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the 1973 code of audit practice stated that the auditor
must be concerned with the possibility of loss due to waste, extravagance, inefficient financial management, poor value for money, mistake or other cause".
The old district audit service took that increasing duty on itself and did useful work.
The hon. Member for Blaydon asked what constituted a substantial increase under paragrpah 7(c). It is more than simply that the individual lives in the authority's area. It

would be absurd to exclude someone on those grounds, but any further involvement on any scale whatever would be such a bar.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about a conflict between consultancy and audit. As I said in my opening speech, the intention of the code is to separate major consultancy work and major audit work. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) also made that point. It is right that that work should be separated, and the commission is unequivocal about that in its code.
The hon. Member for Blaydon, a professional in these matters, also spoke of the protection given by qualified privilege. I shall probably not use the right legal language, but, as I understand it, an auditor cannot be sued for libel unless it can be proved that he acted with malice. Given that there is no question of malice, he will have privilege to say what he needs to say to carry out his duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield argued that the sub-paragraphs to paragraph 43 did not amount to a qualification of my right hon. Friend's statement of 25 March. Those sub-paragraphs expand and define the contents of that statement, but do not amount to a qualification.
It was pointed out that the code was published not by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but by an organisation called Needham Printers Ltd. This was simply the commission setting about its duty of finding the best value for money and Needham Printers Ltd. put in the lowest tender and has done a good job. That shows that the Audit Commission is setting about its task in small and practical things in the right spirit. As to the cost of the document, the commission has so far made no charge for the publication but regards the code as a service to the ratepayer. After it has been approved by Parliament it will be made generally available to the public from the commission, and it is right that that should be so.
I have great pleasure in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) on his able maiden speech. I had the pleasure of living in that city for a time when I was working in an engineering factory to the south of the city and I know many of the aspects of the city to which he referred. I visited the new grammar school last year and can confirm that it is an impressive institution. However, if I have disappointed his expectations of the Audit Commission involving itself head on in what are effectively political battles, I am right to do so.
The only power that can limit the things about which he was complaining in Camden is another democratic power, whether it is the defeat of that council or the democratic power exercised by the House of Commons. It would be wrong for the auditors to become involved in a straight political battle. The case that my hon. Friend cited is an interesting example of some of the difficult decisions which, in the end, courts have to make whether a particular action is merely incompetence, or incompetence to the point of negligence, or not incompetence because it was foreseen by the council. Sometimes there will be difficult judgments to be made on the borderlines and the courts have to help to make them.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I apologise to the House for not having been here through all the debate, but I have been here for a substantial part of it. Does the Minister know that in the London borough of Barnet, which is Tory controlled, the district auditor pointed out that the expenditure on privatisation and getting rid of the


direct labour force of the housing department had been much more costly than non-privatisation, and that Barnet has turned down the idea of privatisation of refuse collection? The Prime Minister's constituency is in that borough and it seems to have an intelligent district auditor. May we be assured that nothing will impair such activity under the new code or under any other measure?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is nothing in the code that will prevent the district auditors from conducting proper audits as they have done in the past. There is a widening of the importance attached to value for money, and, although it would be wrong for me to comment on an individual case, I understand that that was the point being made in this case.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West need not be too worried about the relationship with internal auditors. Right at the beginning of the code, in paragraph 6(e), there is a statement of the basic philosophy of the commission and an emphasis is put on the importance of co-operation between external and internal auditors.
As to fees, on which the hon. Member also commented, there is no intention to land local authorities with bills they do not expect. The commission may want to negotiate a package of fees relating to particular circumstances or to a particular authority. One of the things that will be taken into account is how much work it had to do, and that would depend on the strength of the internal audit. There will be flexibility, and there will be negotiation on bills at the time of the appointment of the auditors.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West made a number of other points. There is no intention of being simplistic about a comparison of unit costs. It is true that no set of numbers can describe in sufficiently objective detail the differences in circumstances, but, on the other hand the sensible use of figures can show up things that are worth investigating further. The Audit Commission has given itself the job of transferring best practice from one authority to another. That is an important job, the results of which must be widely used. From it, benefit can be offered to local authorities and to their ratepayers, and we should not seek to limit that. In every debate in which I have spoken the hon. Member for Leeds, West has brought up the matter of annual elections, but they are not within the subject of this debate, any more than they were within the subject of the last debate. However, the hon. Gentleman is determined and persistent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield asked about the proportion of the auditing work that will go to private companies. At the moment it is about 15 per cent. and the intention is to move it to about 30 per cent. This is 30 per cent. of a bigger overall total audit. More auditing will be done, so this is not a challenge to the staff who are transferring from the district audit service to the commission. This will be additional work, but he is right to warn us—and I am sure that the commission is aware of this—that different skills and experiences are needed in auditing public bodies. Part of the purpose in bringing in outside bodies is to build up a wider expertise in the outside companies, which will be of benefit to the public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) made this point and said that there were things which the private sector can offer to the public sector, and that is true.
I have to say, and I should be in a certain amount of difficulty with my hon. Friends on the Back Benches if I did not do so, that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I do not want to spend too much of the time of the House going over history, but there is nothing in the code to prevent an auditor—indeed, it remains the duty of an auditor to do so—from pointing out whether a council had exceeded its vires and gone outside its powers.
Councils are statutory bodies which derive their powers ultimately from this House, and, as the hon. Member for Bolsover knows having lived through that experience, the issue in his area was whether the council was acting within its vires. Under present legislation, if a council is not, it remains the duty of the auditor to bring that to the attention of the courts. I do not know what the courts would decide if the case were brought to them under the new code, but the issue whether the council was acting within its powers would remain the same.

Mr. Skinner: There is a problem. The surcharge was not just about rents, but whether the council was right to employ a number of workers on its staff, principally some of the miners who did not want to work at Markham colliery because of the disaster. That was not acting outside the powers laid down for local government. There was no Act of Parliament which said that the council could not employ a few more workers, yet it was surcharged.
It is true that the council was taking on the Government head on over the rents under the Housing Finance Act, but the Minister has to bear in mind that the Government also had the power under that Act to send in a commissioner straight away. Quite properly, the council said to the Government, "In accordance with the Act, send in your commissioner and see whether he can collect rents." The commissioner finally got there, very late, but he did not collect any rents because the council had the whole town behind it. However, the commissioner was not sent in to begin with and therefore it was the council's argument that it was the Government who were falling down on their job, not the council.

Mr. Waldegrave: It would not be fair on the House to conduct a sub-debate, on an issue which has no doubt been debated before my arrival in the House on many occasions. However, let us imagine a nightmarish council which voted to reintroduce hanging. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not say that that council, although it had a mandate to do so, could stand against the will of this House and do that. Clearly, that would be an absurd extension outside its vires. We must remember that the powers of local authorities are defined by this House, and it remains the duty of district auditors to see that local councils do not step outside their proper powers.
There has been a general welcome, I think, from both sides of the House for this code. Although I may have disappointed the hon. Member for Bolsover, after the enthusiasm of his initial welcome, I hope that he will recognise that a very professional accountancy job has been done here. It is one that will serve the public well. It will be revised from time to time and brought back once every five years or so to the House if it needs major revision. Meantime, we welcome the introduction of the code. The Audit Commission is a new and important addition to the safeguards for the ratepayer and individual


citizen to see that his money is well spelt. We wish it well in its work, and its first step in producing this code has been a successful and professional one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation)

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (No. 2) Order 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The order was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the former Secretary of State, on 10 May and laid before this House on 12 May. It gives effect to changes in traffic area boundaries which, subject to the approval of both Houses, are to take effect on 1 April 1984. It may help the House if I first explain what traffic areas are and what they do, and then say why the Government wish to reorganise the boundaries.
Traffic commissioners and the traffic areas for which they are responsible were set up in 1930 to regulate the growing bus industry, which before then was regulated in some areas by local authorities and in others hardly at all. The country was divided into 13 traffic areas. Sometimes the boundaries followed county boundaries; elsewhere they followed the operating boundaries of the major bus companies of that day. It was established that the chairmen of the commissioners were to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but thereafter would be thoroughly insulated from political interference. Two other commissioners in each area were to be chosen by the Secretary of State from panels, one nominated by county councils and the other by district councils.
The commissioners do an excellent job. In 1934, the chairmen were made responsible for the quantity licensing of road haulage. The commissioners are also responsible for the licensing of bus and heavy goods vehicle drivers. The traffic areas now employ about 800 staff directly in support of the commissioners' licensing functions. Their turnover is about £50 million per annum, almost all of it self-financing through licence fees paid by users.
Meanwhile, the nature of the commissioners' original function regulating the bus industry has changed, as we all know. The Transport Act 1980 therefore freed from licensing all long distance bus services, abolished fares controls, and established a presumption in favour of granting licences for local services. The net effect of those changes was to reduce the workload on the commissioners and on their staff.
Meanwhile, other aspects of the traffic areas' work have continued to demand attention, especially their responsibilities for road freight licensing. In particular, and most recently, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will remember, the Transport Act 1982 gave them new responsibilities for considering environmental issues relating to goods vehicle operating centres.
The traffic commissioner system has served us well for over 50 years. It has proved thoroughly flexible in responding to the new demands placed upon it. During those years, the boundaries established in 1930 have been changed only three times: once in 1933, when the southern traffic area was abolished, reducing the number to 12, and the present power to change boundaries by order was established; once in 1940, when the two areas in Scotland were combined into one, leaving the 11 areas that we now have — on that occasion the wartime emergency was cited as the reason; and in 1960, when some minor


modifications were effected by a consolidating Act. That was the last change. So the power under which this order is made, now continued in a further consolidating Act of 1981, has not been used in the past 40 years.
The onus is therefore on the Government to justify changing a system which has served us well. What persuaded us that the time for change had come was that, because of the changing workload on the bus licensing side, we were not using to the full the talents and expertise of the chairmen of traffic commissioners. The independence of the chairmen and commissioners is an immensely valuable element in our licensing system, and one that we all wish to continue, but the chairmen themselves recognise that the system was not operating at full stretch. It is essential, in my opinion, to make full use of those men's talents.
So, with the agreement of the chairmen, we looked at various proposals, originally to reduce their number from 11 to seven or eight, coming up with the final suggeston that I put to the House tonight, to reduce the number from 11 to eight and the number of areas from 11 to nine. No chairman will lose his job because of this reorganisation, nor will any member of their staff. We have taken the opportunity provided by retirements to reorganise, without any need for loss of jobs. We shall keep a close eye on the pressures that there may be on the chairmen and their staff following the boundary changes, especially in view of their new responsibilities under the Transport Act 1982, although I do not believe that it is at all likely that further boundary changes will be needed in the near future.
Our second main reason for changing the traffic area boundaries is that since the local government boundary changes of 1974 it had become a source of irritation that the traffic area boundaries did not coincide with local government boundaries. They never had coincided everywhere. In 1930, our predecessors thought it more important in some areas to follow the bus company operating boundaries, but, as I have said, bus service licensing has become relatively less important and the local government reorganisation has made the problem worse. As a result, a number of local authorities had to deal with another traffic area for just one or two parishes. Plainly, that is not appropriate.
The time has therefore come to tackle the two problems together: to reduce the number of traffic areas, consistent with the work that is being undertaken—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the point—and to align the boundaries with the county boundaries, wherever practical. Before doing so, we have thoroughly consulted the bus and freight industries, local government associations and other interested bodies, trade unions, and in particular the traffic commissioners themselves. Our proposals were modified in response to the views of those directly affected. Indeed, most of the changes from the original proposals in the consultation paper circulated in May of last year were designed to keep to an absolute minimum the disturbance to the customers who need to use the traffic commissioners and the traffic areas themselves.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Department derive any financial benefit from this reorganisation?

Mrs. Chalker: As far as I can see, immediately no, but from the point of view of organisation, it is sensible to do it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady said: "As far as I can see, immediately no". If there are therefore longer-term benefits, from which part of the reorganisation do they derive?

Mrs. Chalker: I can only say that we have not yet had the experience of operating the Transport Act 1982, which deals with the operating centres for heavy goods vehicle operators. When the traffic commissioners get to grips with that, some benefit may be derived as a result of this order which would not have been derived without it—if the House approves the order. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categoric answer that there will be no benefit. On the other hand, I cannot say that there will be any benefit to the Government except that which results from the organisational common sense of these changes.
Let me take the House rapidly through the order. It seems somewhat long for rather minor changes but law as it was written in the 1930s was a good deal more complicated than it seems to be even today. The main operative provision is article 4. That brings the new boundaries into force on 1 April 1984 and introduces the schedule which defines the new areas by reference to local government boundaries. Therefore, article 5 abolishes the signed maps which, since 1960, have delineated the traffic area boundaries. Articles 6 to 9 contain transitional provisions to do with matters of internal organisation such as the traffic commissioners' reports spanning the date of the boundary changes. Finally, articles 10 to 17 provide for such matters as the treatment of applications for licences that are in hand when the boundary changes take effect. Those provisions are designed to keep inconvenience to the users of traffic area services to a minimum.
Briefly, in article 4 and the schedule the order proposes a reduction in the number of areas from 11 to nine, as I have already said. That involves amalgamating most of the present northern area with most of the present Yorkshire area, and most of the eastern area with most of the east midland area. Other changes are designed to reduce the size of those combined areas which would otherwise be excessive and to adjust to local government boundaries.
In practice, we succeeded in following county boundaries in all but four counties—Derbyshire, Essex, Surrey and Kent — where the strength of operational links crossing county boundaries seemed to outweigh the administrative convenience of following them. In those counties the new boundaries follow district council boundaries and the details are set out in the schedule to be found on page 9. When my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced those proposals on 19 November 1982, he laid a map in the Library showing the new boundaries.
As I said, we consulted thoroughly. I can commend the order to the House as a modest administrative reform which commands the support of the majority of those directly affected. I do not want to claim too much for it, but I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House with it. Our predecessors in the 1930s judged it right that traffic area boundaries should not be changed except with the express approval of both Houses.
I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the traffic commissioners and their staff and to


bring that to the attention of the House. They work on, rarely receiving our gratitude and often receiving only our everlasting investigative questioning, and they do a good job for us. I trust that the House will follow me in supporting this small but sensible administrative reform which does not have wide implications.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I begin by associating myself with the congratulations that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport offered to the traffic commissioners and to all the staff who work in the traffic areas.
The Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (No.2) Order 1983 is, as is clear from its title, the second order to be laid before Parliament in order to bring about this minor administrative change. The first order had to be withdrawn because the eagle eye of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, under the excellent chairmanship of Bob Cryer, who is, sadly, no longer with us, spotted and drew to the attention of the Department of Transport and the House the fact that it was technically deficient. In view of the earlier debate, it is interesting that that deficiency arose because the order's vires were being questioned. This order has corrected those technical defects and has been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which has found it to be technically correct. Even had Bob Cryer been here, one can say in all fairness that he could have had no objection to its technicalities.
However, there remains some doubt as to whether the Government have the policy of boundary changes right. We have to accept from the beginning that the system of road traffic areas and the functions of the chairmen and staff in the areas exist to provide a public service. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that it is the Government's responsibility to justify the changes. I am not convinced that those changes have been justified. That public service has been carried out for 50 years in these areas even though the pattern and style of work has changed and probably will change even more.
The system was established as a result of a Royal Commission which between 1928 and 1930 examined all the detailed aspects of the passenger and goods carrying industries. In its report of 1929, Cmnd. 3416, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that
as modern road passenger transport has grown to such importance … the present chaotic system of licensing must disappear and be replaced by an entirely different system more suited to present day needs.
No one quarrelled with that. Indeed, as the hon. Lady said, the detailed proposals of the Royal Commission became parts IV and V of the Road Traffic Act 1930. There were 11 areas for England and Wales and two for Scotland. Now we have 10 for England and Wales and one for Scotland. In each of those there was a permanent full-time commissioner with two part-time colleagues.
The Royal Commission looked at the road goods carrying industry and said that it
is in a condition which lacks all unity and is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals who, while endeavouring to compete with other forms of transport, are at the same time engaged in bitter and uneconomic strife with each other in their own particular branch.
One could almost use that very statement to describe some sections of the passenger carrying services that we have at present with the cut-throat competition which is going on

between road and rail and, indeed, between different bus companies. However, it is not my intention to stray into the present day too far.
The Royal Commission's recommendations on licensing were strongly opposed at the time and were not implemented. It was not until a conference in 1932, convened by Sir Arthur Salter to consider a number of different points, that goods vehicle licensing came into being. He said that that was necessary to eliminate
the evils of overcrowding and unbridled competition in the transport industry.
Therefore, we moved on to the present system of road licensing.
I stress that, not for the first time or the last time, and certainly not only on road transport, the state was obliged to step into the ring to regulate the affairs of an industry that was incapable of regulating itself, both in terms of the safety of those who worked in the industry and in the interests of other road users. The state has repeatedly had to step in to deal with such matters in the road transport industry.
Commercial considerations must be taken into account. One has to look at the public need and how that can be met. As the hon. Lady said fairly and correctly, the last decade has seen the introduction of operator licences and so on, resulting in more free competition, and I do not deny that that has meant less work for the chairmen of the traffic areas. However, that in itself does not justify the reduction in the number of chairmen. If that reduction is at the root of the order—I suspect that it is—it need not lead automatically to the reduction of traffic areas. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for a chairman to cover two traffic areas.
The order proposes separate traffic areas for Wales and the west midlands to be covered by one chairman.

Mrs. Chalker: The traffic commissioner who will cover the west midlands will also cover south Wales, but north Wales will remain under the traffic commissioner in Manchester.

Mr. Hughes: It is perfectly obvious that I am not very good at map reading.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is not Welsh, after all.

Mr. Hughes: That is true. Despite the name, I am not Welsh. I take the hon. Lady's word that I have got it wrong, and I apologise. However, it looks to me like the whole of Wales. It says "Pattern 8" in my book, but I accept that the Minister knows more about the precise technicalities than I do, and shall not quarrel with her on that score.
But that does not alter my proposition that it is perfectly possible for one chairman to cover two traffic areas. I do not know why it is particularly necessary for south Wales to have a separate traffic area but only a part-time chairman, so to speak. There has been a persistent wish to reduce the number of traffic areas. I understand that there was a review in 1974, which proposed some changes. At that time, it was realised that there were no good reasons for change, and the report was simply left on the shelf. In March 1981 another report was commissioned. It has been put to me that the 1981 report produced no evidence to back up its recommendations,


and that there was no attempt to make a cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, I am told that a further consultative paper had to be produced in 1982.
I was interested in the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked about the benefits to the state or the Department. She said that there were none immediately. However, I have a consultation paper dated 26 May 1982, which was issued by Mr. Wiblin. It is claimed that the changes in the traffic areas are expected to yield savings of between £ 120,000 and £ 150,000 per annum in the cost of administering the traffic area functions. Paragraph 8 goes on to say that traffic areas are meant to be broadly self-financing.
If I have understood the Minister's figures correctly, there is a turnover of £50 million a year. If that £120,000 to £150,000 is passed on in savings to the consumer, it will represent only about 1p per annum per licence. Therefore, there can be no justification for the proposal on the basis of those savings being made. Indeed, it is argued that many of the assumed savings have already been eaten up in the scheme's preparation. However, bigger savings could be made from enforcement. I am told that there could be a saving of, on average, £50,000 per annum if enforcement officers did their own prosecutions in summary cases, instead of giving the work to private solicitors.
I suspect that the Government will find that the savings are illusory and that the greater efficiency is non-existent. I also suspect that they will find that it is the wrong policy and that it may be very expensive. It may be rather like the proposition to hive off and privatise the HGV test stations. According to today's announcement, that exercise has, happily, been abandoned. I make no complaint about that, because in our many long hours in Committee upstairs we warned the Government of the dangers of proceeding. The fact that the Department did not take our advice cost it £500,000 in money paid to Lloyd's Register for the work done in good faith by that organisation.
There have, of course, been other cash costs, because of the work done on how the HGV test stations would operate. However, I accept that some of them will be returned in part. Nevertheless, it would have been better if the Department had not begun that exercise. Similarly, the Government may well find that it would have been much better not to embark on the reorganisation embodied in the order. Even if the Government could demonstrate large savings, there would still be reason to be unhappy about the reduction in the number of traffic areas. For example, there will certainly be a reduction in the service to the public.
The consultative document makes it clear that the vast majority of transactions are done by post. In any event, the Department conceded during discussions and consultations that no office would close for at least three years. That was the sort of time scale given in the guarantee. However, personal access to offices is important and should not be decried. To some extent, I question the guarantee of no office closures. I do not think that we have been given a cast-iron guarantee. It was more of an intimation. Perhaps the Minister will say a bit more at the end of the debate about the guarantee on office closures. Once it has been demonstrated that there is no immediate

benefit to the Government from reorganisation and that there is no long-term benefit either, there will be yet another review which will conclude only that offices will have to be closed by administrative action in order to save money and improve efficiency. Offices can be closed by administrative action. For example, the Aberdeen traffic area sub-office in my constituency was closed. As the Minister may know, although she was not directly involved in the correspondence or discussions, I strongly urged the Minister of the day to accept that personal service was important. Ministers could not be moved to accept that the removal of a service that had existed for a long time would give rise to hardship. The Minister of the day did not seem willing or able to accept that there was a qualitative difference between travelling between Inverness and Aberdeen for a personal appointment or discussion, and travelling between Inverness and Edinburgh. The time difference is an additional three hours, and the cost is considerably greater.
Ministers simply would not accept that, and the decision to close the Aberdeen office was carried through. Ministers would not intervene. If the English traffic areas face the same sort of thing, it could give rise to hardship. I have already exposed the deficiencies in my geographical knowledge of the south-west, and I have no intention of further exposing my ignorance of English geography by attempting to describe any similar situation in the new English traffic areas. I would not dare to compare the travelling difficulties and costs as between Cumbria and Newcastle, and Cumbria and Manchester. It looks very easy on the map — straight across to Newcastle and straight down to Manchester. However, I am well aware that things are not quite as simple as that, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington would put me right if I attempted to expand on that. In some areas there will be two offices. I do not know how long that will continue, but where there is one office the counter service might go because of further centralisation.
The case against the order goes wider than the possible savings or loss of local services. The case against the proposed changes involves the need for the chairmen to devote their efforts to safety because that has been neglected.
Today heavier lorries travel our roads and much publicity has been given to the overloading of vehicles. There is a strong case for keeping the present travel areas, or even increasing the staff. When the previous Secretary of State sought approval for his heavier lorry proposals he promised more examiners and better enforcement. The suggestion is that, instead of reorganising on the basis of reducing traffic areas and making them different sizes with fewer chairmen, we should make the chairmen of the traffic areas more responsible so that they take a more active part in road safety. Some areas are large and more staff is needed for enforcement. I wish that the Government would proceed along that line instead of by way of the order.
We believe that the position is best left as it is. The Government failed to demonstrate, in their consultation papers and this evening, that a reduction in the number of chairmanships will produce any benefits. The Under-Secretary should deal with road safety, which is given insufficient attention.

Mr.D N. Campbell-Savours: I did not intend to intervene until I heard the Under-Secretary. I have received correspondence from two unions — the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association— containing statements at variance with the hon. Lady's comments. She suggested that she had the support of the civil servants involved. She referred to consultations with the trade unions. The House should know what the trade unions say, following their consultations with their members.
In a letter to all hon. Members dated 23 July 1983 the CPSA states:
The trade unions are deeply concerned about the proposed alterations, as we believe that the changes will only lead to a deterioration in service to industry and the general public. There is no justification or need to alter the present arrangements, and we have yet to see any figures which show that the proposals will be cost effective. Indeed, we contend that additional money to pay for staff transfers and revised operational costs will increase the size of the overall bill to the Department and the taxpayer.
Either the CPSA is wrong, or the Minister is wrong. The House should be convinced that the trade unions are wrong, but the hon. Lady has said nothing which proves that what the unions said is incorrect. If the unions are right, the Government may be making a mistake. The Under-Secretary should address herself specifically to the statement in that correspondence by the CPSA, in each of its points.
We have a duty to reply to the accusations, because the statement in the correspondence is based upon full consultations with members who work in the Department which the Government propose to review. They, more than anyone else, are in a position to say whether the level of public service provided by the Department will suffer as a result of the latest initiatives.
I recall a debate 18 months ago when we discussed arrangements for the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing stations. I remember briefs stating that it was not possible to proceed in the way that the Government proposed. It seems that in a written reply today the Government have admitted that it is not possible to proceed in that way. I must presume that the unions were right on that occasion and that they may be right on this occasion. If they are, the House must take their anxieties into account.
The Penrith branch of the SCPS, in a letter dated 21 July, states:
In broad terms if the proposals are implemented it will mean that anyone from Cumbria having business at a Traffic Area Office will have to travel to Manchester and not to Newcastle-upon-Tyne— our 'natural' centre in this area.
That union official refers to "our 'natural' centre". He is right; that is our natural centre. Newcastle is the regional centre of the northern region and Cumbria has always been regarded as part of the northern region.
One of the more distressing aspects of the administrative changes introduced by the Government in the past four years is that they have steadily removed the centres of administration for each of the Departments, apart from the Health Service — I refer to the Departments of Industry and Employment and the Manpower Services Commission— from — Newcastle to Manchester.
There is a residue of discontent among civil servants at the eagerness with which the Government make changes.

People do not want to be regarded as being in the northwest in the way in which the Government insist that they do. Has the Under-Secretary got it right? The area in question stretches as far as Bolsover. The area which the new arrangements will cover starts in Derbyshire and stretches as far as the Scottish border. The Under-Secretary may say that that is administratively convenient to the Department, but it is not commercially convenient to those who are required to attend hearings or meetings at the central offices for administration.
I am concerned about the implications of the order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, pointed out, the consultation paper published on 26 May 1982 referred to some savings to the Department. Do the savings include costs referred to as
staff transfer and revised operational costs derived from the admininistrative arrangements"?
Perhaps I put that in too complicated a way. Do they include any of the ordinary charges which arise where administrative changes are made? Does the £120,000 to £150,000 saving include those sums?
Finally, I am concerned that there will be a reduction in service. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the northern region and my part of the northern region that there will be no upsets as a result of these changes and that all commercial operators can feel that the Department has fully taken into account the problems that they may have as a result of these increased travelling distances.

Mrs. Chalker: With leave of the House, I shall try to respond to the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
During my earlier remarks the hon. Member for Workington asked, "What savings?" As there will be nine traffic commissioners rather than 11, there will be a saving of two salaries, but that is not a major sum. The consultation paper issued in May 1982 discussed a reduction from 11 to seven areas, whereas we are now proposing a reduction only from 11 to nine areas and the continued maintenance of the Newcastle and Nottingham offices. Therefore, there is no question of savings being made even on the scale of figures given in paragraph 8 of the consultation paper.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked why we did not get it right in the first place and why this is the No. 2 order. When we carried out our consultations, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), made the order which was to take effect from 1 April this year. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments questioned whether two technical transition provisions might be ultra vires. The problem was that draftsmen 50 years ago did not anticipate all the transitional provisions which might be desirable. Things have changed a good deal. But I think we went too far in making good the lack of detail in the primary legislation. That was why we decided not to move the motion to give effect to that order, to delay the reorganisation and to introduce a new order when we had ensured that it was in no way ultra vires.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was doubtful about the policy on traffic area offices. There is no change in the policy. The hon. Gentleman went a little wider and


mentioned a parliamentary question which was answered today, to which I shall come in a moment. I say again that there is no change in the policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. The one area where we have been stepping up our work is enforcement. While I say there will be no loss of jobs in the traffic area offices as a result of this order, I must say to him that there are changes in jobs and that more people are working on enforcement. He and I are at one in believing in the need for greater enforcement of heavy goods construction and use regulations and operating requirements. I say again that there is no change in policy. The traffic area offices continue. We have some boundary changes because the workload has changed in pattern. Operators over the past 50 years have changed in the way that they operate. That will come as no surprise as we now have motorways, which were not even thought of 50 years ago. So it is a sensible move to try to bring together the expertise and to use it wisely. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is ridiculous to have under-used "talent, which is what has been happening. We have two traffic commissioner chairmen who are coming up to retirement, so this is a convenient point to carry out these changes with no loss of jobs to the individuals concerned.
We are not reducing the service, because we have already given a firm undertaking that none of the offices will close for a minimum of three years. In those three years all manner of things may happen— as a result of debates in this House and experience on our roads— for which we may wish to make adaptations. No office will close for a minimum of three years. There will be no changes for the staff in terms of moving or anything else.
The hon. Member for Workington said that those in Cumbria will now need to contact Manchester rather than Newcastle. While I do not wish to stray from this order, I remember when doing another job the number of times I was asked whether the northern reaches of the north-west could look to Manchester because in winter people there could not get over the Pennines. That may not appear to be a very good answer to the hon. Member for Workington but it has been a problem in carrying out duties to go from Cumbria to Newcastle in winter. It caused many problems in the winter of 1981–82. As the Newcastle office is remaining open, I do not believe there is any problem for the staff or indeed for the operators with the main operating centre based in Manchester. We have not had the complaints that the hon. Gentleman's remarks might have led the House to expect.
I do not blame the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for having slight difficulty over the geography. The map in the consultation document at which he was looking was the prior arrangement when the consideration was for seven traffic area offices rather than for nine. The proposal for the all-Wales area was dropped following the consultations, so it is not surprising that the map misled him. As I said, south Wales will look to the traffic commissioner who also looks after the west midlands and north Wales will remain under the aegis of the traffic commissioner based in Manchester. That is the existing position.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North, and for Workington asked about savings. I mentioned the chairmen and their direct salaries but the sum involved will

not be large— less than £100,000 and only two years' savings. It is very much a one-off cost and is not being done to make savings.
I was also asked about savings on enforcement. We seek to keep the cost of enforcement under constant review. It would be hard to justify full-time lawyers in local offices, because of the amount of work, although if that work continues there may be a call for it. Engineers are far better employed inspecting vehicles than doing office work, which is why prosecutions are handled outside. I do not see the need for full-time prosecuting officers to be within the traffic area offices. I want the staff there to be carrying out enforcement, as does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was advocating the employment of full-time lawyers and area traffic officers. I was pointing out that the existing staff who brief outside lawyers could adequately do the job in summary cases without the necessity to bring in outside solicitors. It has been put to me that, if that were done, savings of £50,000 a year could be achieved, perhaps more in metropolitan areas and less in small traffic areas.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall look into that. It is not an area where I think great savings could be made; I would rather that our engineers were enforcing the rules on the road.
The Aberdeen office is not affected by this measure. It is a small sub-office which does the vast majority of its work by post and telephone. It is an expensive office to run and it still needs the full range of support staff. When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) made the decision about that office, the issues affecting the offices in combined areas were different. We expect to close the Aberdeen sub-office without making anybody redundant and there will be negligible inconvenience to the public because, as I say, the vast majority of its work is done by post and telephone and not by personal visit.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I admit that I was trespassing on the good nature of the House in having a moan about the closure of my office in Aberdeen. The consultation document said that, although most of the work was done by post, there was no intention to close any of the offices — not much of an assurance in view of what is happening in Aberdeen.

Mrs. Chalker: I have assured the hon. Gentleman that none of the offices will close for three years. I cannot look further ahead than that because already, in the last three years, we have had changes which have made a difference to the work of the traffic commissioners and their staffs in the traffic area offices. I would be foolish to give an undertaking which I might not be able, might not even be in a position, to carry out.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There might even be another election by then.

Mrs. Chalker: I doubt whether there will be another general election within the next three years.
Much has been made tonight of inconvenience to users. A few users will deal with a different office, so they will find a different system to operate, but their papers will be forwarded without undue delay and they will have the same standard of service.
The order is the result of extensive consultation. Perhaps I did not lay sufficient stress on that. In the last year we have spoken to the widest possible number of people about the subject, including the trade unions. I shall deal with what the hon. Member for Workington said about that.
I am certain that the customer will not find any inconvenience — a change of office perhaps, but for many it will be more convenient. I have said that we have no plans to cease providing an over-the-counter service at any office, but that is being used less and less, and most people are already many miles from their nearest office because of the location of the offices.
The hon. Member for Workington asked about opposition to the reorganisation from the Civil Service unions. That opposition arose because they feared that in the two pairs of merged areas— northern and Yorkshire and eastern and east midlands — one or other of the existing offices would close. I have said that that will not happen inside the next three years. The Society of Civil and Public Servants, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, has about 80 members in the traffic area offices—10 per cent. of the total staff—none of whom will lose their jobs or have to move as a result of the order.
In practice, office closures would not be cost-effective. A small number of support staff would be saved, but that saving would he outweighed by the cost of redundancies and compulsory transfers. While some may not be totally content, it is clear that we have consulted widely, and as the Department has repeatedly assured the trade unions that there are no plans to close offices in the foreseeable future, I cannot give any wider assurance. The vast majority of people concerned are happy with the final outcome, although they may not have been happy with the consultation paper as it was first presented in May 1982.

Dr. John Marek: Is the Minister saying that no civil servant will have to move as a result of the changes, or was she referring only to those civil servants who belong to the Civil and Public Services Association?

Mrs. Chalker: I said that we were not closing any offices and that the staff in them would stay and would not have to move as a result of the order. I added that, in any case, the offices would not be changing for three years.
We frequently, probably rightly, make a meal of what may seem to the outside world to be small changes, but they are important changes because we want the most efficient organisation of something which, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, concerns the safety of vehicles on our roads and the propriety of those who operate those vehicles. The order will enable us to be more efficient and to organise more sensibly, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (No. 2) Order 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4579/83, concerning a plan of action for the evaluation of the results of Community research and development programmes, 5544/83 concerning the utilisation of the results of Community sponsored research and development and 4094/83 concerning a programme of research on forecasting and assessment in science and technology, and supports the Government's intention to ensure that these measures constitute a cost effective means of maximising the effectiveness of Community research and development in the pursuit of the policy objectives of the Community and the United Kingdom, and in defining such objectives for the longer term in the sphere of research and development.—[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983, a copy of which was laid be fore this House on 8th July, be approved. —[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
That Sir Anthony Berry, Sir Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Dr. Gerald Vaughan and Mr. Richard Wainwright, be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr. Cope.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND

Ordered,
That Sir Anthony Berry, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Sir Anthony Kershaw, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Dr. Gerard Vaughan and Mr. Richard Wainwright, be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972.—[Mr. Cope.]

Asbestos (Power Station)

Motion made, and question, proposed, That this House do not adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Tom Cox: A major health and environmental issue is beginning to arise with the demolition of power stations, because of the asbestos in them. Many people are greatly concerned about what has happened and what will happen.
I am aware that the Minister has made a major policy statement on the selling of power stations and I understand that in future all stations will be cleaned of asbestos before they are put up for sale. I welcome that, as I am sure many others do in all areas of the United Kingdom. I feel certain that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who is in his place and hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will welcome that part of the Minister's statement. I hope that the Minister will outline in some detail exactly what his statement means.
I utterly deplore the incompetent actions of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which it would undoubtedly have continued had it not been forced to change its policy. I am informed that as recently as a month ago residents were told by the board's officials, when they started to express their concern about what was happening, that the board could not do anything as the matter was out of its hands. The officials told the residents, "We have the fullest confidence in the contractors who will be involved in the station's demolition." If they did say that, how dare they have said it. People's health has been put at risk by the incompetence of some of those who have been involved in the demolition of power stations. My constituency of Tooting is just across the river from Wandsworth and the Fulham power station.
I am sure that everyone is becoming more and more aware of the enormous dangers that asbestos presents. It is without doubt the most lethal of all materials. In any power station there are tons and tons of asbestos, from the basement to the roof. There is asbestos in the lagging of steam pipes and it is present in boiler drums and fan cases. There are enormous quantities of asbestos in power stations. For about 20 years before I became a Member of this place I worked for the Central Electricity Generating Board. That means that I understand fully the concern of communities in many areas. Over the past month, more and more of my constituents have been contacting me to express their concern. They are extremely worried about the dangers posed to them by the demolition of Fulham power station.
I am concerned about the health of all local people and the action that is taken when power stations are demolished. We know that even the minutest particles of asbestos can cause the greatest of dangers to one's health. All the medical evidence shows that to be so. I believe that the Minister has a duty to demand a full report from the board on what actions it has taken with the sale of power stations apart from the Fulham station.
I understand that the local residents were not notified that Fulham power station had been sold or that it was to be pulled down. When they started to make inquiries, they were told that a reputable firm would be dealing with the removal of the asbestos. I suggest to the Minister that he

should spend some time, if he has not done so already, examining the history of the so-called reputable firm which was involved in the demolition work.
The Minister should also make inquiries about the way in which the asbestos was removed and the amount which has been taken out of the station, because those are crucial factors. I stress that there is ample evidence that the board acted deplorably in its lack of concern once the station had been sold, knowing, as it must have done, that there were enormous quantities of asbestos in the station. It has acted abominably and has failed to take account of the general interests and welfare of the communities in its area.
Had the Minister not taken the action that he took today, the board would have continued with its policies. The Minister may be aware of the report in the East Anglian Daily Times on 28 June about Cliff Quay power station, which is coming to the end of its life. The article dealt with the concern expressed by local residents about the effect of the closure of the power station. It said:
A spokesman for the CEGB South East Region said yesterday that the public had nothing to fear from the dismantling of power stations.
The CEGB and any site buyer had to follow rigorous safety procedures.
We and the Minister know how meaningless that is. I believe that the Minister, whatever he may say in the House, and whatever his comments on radio, should tell the CEGB officials of his deep worry at the way in which they have sold these power stations without considering the effect on the communities living near them.
I should like the Minister to say whether the CEGB will be responsible for removing asbestos, or whether contractors approved by the board will be given that work. Communities up and down the country will be interested in knowing that. That is a major issue, but there are many other matters that need to be explained fully to local people. The Minister has been in the House for many years, and he knows the importance of this issue. He knows that his reply tonight and any correspondence that he sends to any hon. Member will receive a great deal of coverage on television or in the national and local press.
What will be the CEGB's role in areas where power stations are sited and in the adjoining areas? Because I became anxious over what I read about the Fulham power station, I wrote to the chief executive officer of the London borough of Wandsworth to ask what consultation he had had with the Fulham and Hammersmith council and the CEGB over the demolition of the Fulham power station. My constituency is about a mile away, across the river, from that station. It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to find out what is happening. In such a case the best person to approach is the chief executive officer of the local authority.
There must be many similar cases up and down the country about which local authorities must be kept fully informed. Will local councils, the CEGB and the Health and Safety Executive be involved in monitoring the removal of asbestos during demolition? If so, who will pay for the work? Will monitoring take place at all times when asbestos is being removed? I assure the Minister that it is crucial to have that question answered, because asbestos is so dangerous that its removal must be monitored all the time.
Whether the CEGB is itself responsible for the removal of asbestos, or whether it appoints approved contractors, what powers will the local authorities have to enable


council officials to enter the power station that is being demolished, at any time of the day or night, to see what work is taking place and, if necessary, to stop the work? Local authorities have a duty to inform their residents about what is happening. Will local communities he kept fully informed of the general health and safety conditions to be observed during the demolition of a power station? That again is crucial.
There are other crucial issues. I have to repeat that word, because notification of any contact with asbestos is crucial, and the fullest information about the work must be given to the local community.
How will the waste be removed from power stations? Where will it be dumped? Will local authorities in those areas where the asbestos waste is to be dumped be kept fully informed? I am sure that all hon. Members recall the incidents five or six years ago when chemical waste was being dumped irresponsibly in many parts of the country. Often, no one knew what was being dumped or where. It was only by chance that local authorities found that sites that had been allocated for the dumping of waste contained some of the most dangerous chemical waste imaginable. We are entitled to know where the asbestos waste will be put and people within those communities must be kept fully informed of what is happening.
What type of transport will be used for the movement of asbestos waste? Will it be a special type of lorry, because one assumes that most of the removal will be done by lorry? The lorry must be sealed so that once the asbestos waste is in it cannot come out. I am sure that every day we all see lorries going through our cities carrying rubbish stacked up, with no protective cover. We often see the rubbish blowing in the roads. I hope that that will not be allowed to apply to the movement of asbestos.
What sort of site security will there be once a power station is closed and demolition starts, or even before it is demolished? What sort of site security will there be so that no one is allowed to get in, especially children who are often unaware of the dangers of this material and who find a power station a pleasant place to play in?
I should like to bring to the Minister's attention a report in The Guardian on 29 June about the fears of people living near the Kingston power station in Surrey, another of the stations that have been closed down, which is awaiting demolition. The report said:
Local residents claim that they have found their property covered in a fine white dust, which they fear is asbestos.
A gentleman who lives near the station said:
I am worried about the safety of my family. No one seems to be the least bit interested. It is a scandal.
The report went on to say:
The CEGB says that the station is surrounded by a secure fence, which is guarded round the clock.
The reporter commenting on the fears of those living adjacent to the Kingston power station said in response to the generating board's claim that there was a secure fence and that, in theory, no one could get access to the station:
Yesterday, I had no trouble in gaining access to the site and walking through the old hopper house.
That backs up the criticisms that I have repeatedly made about the generating board. I shall not pursue that point, but it emphasises why so many other questions have to be answered following the statement today by the Minister. It is crucial that once a station is closed down or demolition work starts no one other than those who are authorised to

have access to the site to do the necessary work should be allowed access, yet we saw from the report of only a month ago that at Kingston it was easy for people to get access.
We are entitled, as are all the people in the country, to ask for the publication of a list of all the stations that are closed or due for closure, so that local people can be fully informed about them. I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is published. Many of the stations were built 40 or 50 years ago, so over the next two or three years more will be closed.
It has come to my attention that Sir Walter Marshall was asked about that, and he replied:
There is a list, but we do not honestly believe that it would be in the public interest if we published it.
I do not know whether that is true. I hope that it is not. If it is true, I hope that the Minister will leave that gentleman in no doubt that there must be no secrecy about which stations are closed or will be closed. The CEGB has a duty to make such facts clear to communities.
When the demolition of power stations begins, what will be the Government's role, aware as they are of all the potential health dangers to local communities? Will the asbestos working group of the Health and Safety Executive be called in to monitor what happens at power stations? This problem could last for 10 years. That is how long it may take to demolish the obsolete power stations.
Having worked in the industry, I know that every power station is different and will present different problems when demolition begins. I hope that no one, be it the CEGB or the Government, will ever say, "We are sorry if there were mistakes, but we really did not understand what was happening." Therefore, there must be the fullest involvement by the Government in such an operation.
Are the Government satisfied with the present controls relating to asbestos? I am sure that every hon. Member has read recently about asbestos in schools, in factories, and so on. About 18 months ago asbestos was removed from a ward in Springfield hospital in my constituency. The work was carried out in such a way that I referred the case to the ombudsman because I was worried about the lack of proper safeguards. Yesterday a report appeared in The Standard headed
'Danger station' to be sealed off.
Blue asbestos has been discovered at Goodge street tube station and the station will be closed for two days so that it can be removed. That is another example of the dangers.
On 26 July the Bristol Evening Post published an article about the Portishead power station headed
Safety first for deadly asbestos.
According to the report, 400 tonnes of asbestos will have to be removed from that power station when demolition begins.
There are countless examples of the fears and dangers that the removal of asbestos from power stations, factories, schools and so forth causes for local communities as well as for the people involved in the removal work.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 provides that six weeks' notice of the removal of asbestos should be given so that companies and local inhabitants may be made aware of it. Does that apply in inner London? If the Minister cannot answer that question tonight, perhaps he would be kind enough to let me know later. I ask because, as the Minister probably knows, there are many obsolete power stations in inner London. That will become a major issue in the next five years. My hon.


Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) told me that there is an old power station in his constituency which will soon be demolished. What provision is there to inform the local community of what is happening.?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The West Ham power station is to be decommissioned next month, but it is not yet certain whether it will be demolished, kept for standby or, as I hope, nominated for combined heat and power, as suggested in a recent report. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, because the effects of asbestos dust are not known for perhaps 20 years after it has been inhaled.

Mr. Cox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Whatever happens to that station, I am sure that local residents will find this debate interesting.
What is being done to help strengthen the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate? It is unfortunate that, when such an important issue is involved, the factory inspectorate does not have sufficient personnel to monitor the work. The Government should give high priority to ensuring that there are sufficient qualified factory inspectors to monitor the work.
A few months ago the EC changed its requirements for people who work with asbestos. I understand that stricter safeguards were imposed on people who work with it for more than four hours a week. Will that be applied here? Many people who are following this debate would like to know that.
I am glad that we are not pushed for time, as this issue must have the fullest possible discussion. I am sure that the Minister will be the first to agree with that. Does he agree that the law should be strengthened so that those who have been convicted of offences concerned with the removal of asbestos are not allowed to set up new firms to carry out the same line of work within a few months?
The hon. Member for Fulham, who probably knows more about the matter than I do, will develop the point. It has come to my attention that some members of the supposedly reputable firm that was engaged to demolish Fulham power station had been convicted of and fined for offences relating to the removal of asbestos.
This matter is one of those that come up in the House from time to time about which there is no party political argument. I shall agree with everything that the hon. Member for Fulham says. We are discussing matters of great concern to us and to our constituents. I accept that I have put many questions to the Minister, but I have tried to do so fairly, and I have tried to outline the comments made to me by my constituents. We have the opportunity this evening to begin to restore public confidence, and the Minister's statement earlier today went a long way toward achieving that. If he can answer in detail the questions that I have asked, and that other hon. Members will put to him, we shall have gone a long way towards achieving the purpose of this debate. I hope that the Minister will respond openly and frankly to those questions.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I am glad to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Part at least of his career with the Central Electricity Generating Board was spent at Fulham power station. He

was an elected member of the local authority in Fulham, and has not been forgotten by the residents. We shall always be glad to welcome him back, not in a parliamentary capacity because that might cause me some inconvenience, but in any other capacity in which he cares to return.
May I lose no time in thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his statement today, which took the form of a letter to me. We had spoken informally about the problem, and on Monday of this week he met me, with councillor Kim Howe, the leader of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, councillor Gerald Wombwell, the chairman of the engineering committee, and Mr. Bruce Cova, the director of environmental health. The action that followed was effective and quick, and the hon. Member for Tooting will agree that it is an especially happy chance that his Adjournment debate came tonight. I doubt whether he knew— I certainly did not— that a statement would be made today.
The first person to be aware of the sale of Fulham power station was me. I spoke to the environmental health director, who immediately put in hand the steps that led to the Health and Safety Executive coming quickly to the site, as a result of which the monitoring programme is now under way. It is correct to say that at no time was the borough council informed of what was happening, nor was anyone under any legal obligation to inform it.
In the distant past, before the Under-Secretary ascended the slippery pole on which he now reclines, he introduced a private Member's Bill under which the demolition of any building for any purpose should be reported to the local authority so that the citizens would know what was happening. While most demolition programmes are harmless, some are not; and some, at the very least, cause considerable inconvenience. We all wish that my hon. Friend had been as successful with that Bill as he has been in his prompt negotiations with the board.
The first site meeting that I attended was held on 12 April, by which time two groups of local citizens had rightly begun to be extremely alarmed. I pay tribute to the individuals who have maintained such a strong and well-informed grip on this matter. Mr. John Gurter has been prominent in advancing and expressing the fears of the local residents, and Virginia Watson was the organising secretary of the group of concerned citizens who surrounded the offices of the CEGB this morning and can be said to have precipitated the statement that we have all welcomed.
Although the local authority has no responsibility for matters relating to asbestos, it responded very well. It is always easy to say that a local authority does not want to know, will not give information, or refuses to meet people, but in this case most fair-minded people would agree that it responded quickly and sympathetically.
I attended a long meeting of the engineering committee at which the factory inspector and the director of environmental health services spoke and answered questions. As a result of that meeting, which took place about a month ago at Hammersmith and Fulham town hall, a working party was set up consisting of councillors of both the main parties, residents of the neighbourhood, the appropriate officers of the council and the factory inspector. I have no doubt that the existence of that working party has greatly speeded up the flow of information and has put at rest at least some of the anxieties that beset the citizens.
The new owners of the power station made the necessary application to the Health and Safety Executive, and stated that they intended to move quantities of asbestos as part of their programme of demolition. In fact—and this is a point that the hon. Member for Tooting did not make—nobody, not even the CEGB, knew how much asbestos was on the site. The owners told me that there were only 300 tonnes, but figures as high as 3,000 tonnes were quoted. I hope that under the new provision which my hon. Friend the Minister has announced, the public will know how much asbestos is involved, and that, if the board does not know already, it will make it its business to find out and tell us before work is undertaken. Uncertainty over such issues caused the major part of the anxiety.
When I called on my hon. Friend the Minister on Monday, both the factory inspector and the director of environmental health services were present. They repeated what they had said at the town hall meeting to which I referred—that is, that they were completely satisfied that the local residents were in no danger from asbestos dust. True, the work at the site had been stopped twice, once because birds had broken through the sheeting enclosing the building and another time because the monitors, for the first and only time, showed that the dust level had suddenly increased.
We have been receiving daily reports from the monitors, but the expense of manning these monitors is being met by the ratepayers of Fulham, as is the cost of the four members of the staff of the director of environmental health services, who are on site throughout the seven-day working week. The costs are mounting to about £20,000 a month, which is a heavy burden for the ratepayers to shoulder. The Greater London council is kindly helping us with this outgoing, but I am not sure that it is the responsibility of the citizens of Fulham or of Greater London to pay for an essential service that is more properly the responsibility either of the vendors or the buyers in what was a commercial transaction, or, possibly, of the Health and Safety Executive.
I understand the difficulty of making people retrospectively responsible for other people's costs, and I know that my hon. Friend is reassuring himself that the Health and Safety Executive is always available to cope with emergencies, even though, as the hon. Member for Tooting has said, its staff is fairly thin on the ground. Although we can look forward to reassurances about the future, it is only right that I should point out that the people of Fulham are being mulcted of heavy expenditure to ensure their safety.
Is there any comfort that the Minister can give me or them about the ultimate financial responsibility for the precautions that are being taken? The Minister's letter to me today referred to asbestos, and of course it is only asbestos that the Health and Safety Executive is dealing with in this case. The local authority, through its environmental health director, is well able to intervene on nuisance, dust and other inconveniences caused by the demolition programme. However, it has no responsibility for asbestos. If the owners ask the environmental health officer, his four staff members and monitors to leave the premises, they would have no alternative but to depart, bag and baggage, from the power station. I do not believe that the owners will say that, and if they do I have no doubt that there will be some way of avoiding the undesirable consequences of such an instruction.
This is a matter on which the law is perhaps imperfect. I know that the purpose of the Health and Safety Executive is to be available, with its special skills and high professionalism, to intervene in cases where the country's 150 local authorities do not have on their staff people with the same skills. However, I hope that the Minister will find time to explore the possibility of a halfway house. Even if the local authority has no right to lay down the law about what should happen in cases where asbestos is moved, it should at least have the right, when it hears in advance, as happened at Fulham, to go to the site and ensure that the law is properly observed.
Many of the residents may not accept the fact, which I accept, that so far there is no risk—present or future—to the health of those who live in the immediate neighbourhood of the Fulham power station. The monitors have shown no sign of asbestos dust, except on the one occasion that I mentioned, and I understand that the new owners fulfilled their promise to clear the asbestos in a safer way than the one previously used. As the House will know, asbestos is usually mounted on chicken wire. When demolition is carried out the asbestos and the wire are put in sacks. The sacks get ruptured and the dust escapes. In this case, the chicken wire was detached before the dust was put in bags. Moreover—another point that was raised by the hon. Member for Tooting—there has been no dust reading either at the Fulham power station site or, I am told, at the ultimate disposal site in the west of London, about which both he and I are concerned.
We are calling the attention of the House to a national risk because Fulham is only the first power station to be demolished and there may be other buildings, owned by other authorities or private companies, which will cause the same risk and whose owners have not participated in the pledge that we have been so glad to hear today. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a national problem, not simply one for my constituency.
The Minister will have to come forward as soon as possible with a new look at the legal problems besetting the movement of asbestos and perhaps other toxic substances, because there are other toxic elements in the Fulham power station besides asbestos. I think that I am right in saying that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which requires six weeks' notice of demolition to be given to the local authority and other responsible bodies, does not apply in London. It would be helpful to know why.
Contractors who are allowed to move asbestos should be identified and approved. In the case of the Fulham power station the consultant was, I am told, a man of high repute in his field. I am not one of those who accuses the new owners of any improper behaviour, but there is no doubt that they have irritated everybody, including me, by not keeping their word on many of the matters that we have discussed. Although they have fulfilled their promises on the main issues, we have all been unnecessarily vexed by their inexperience and lack of knowledge of the kind of information and treatment which citizens are entitled to receive these days, and on the smaller elements in our various discussions such as the holding of site meetings for local citizens, providing me with biographical notes on the company directors, and so on.
One thing is certain. We need to be sure that nobody in future will be allowed by the Health and Safety Executive to move asbestos unless we are confident that he has the experience, reliability and integrity to do so


safely. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us what constraints the Government mean to place on those who carry out such contracts in future. I hope that he will also be able to show that bodies in addition to the Central Electricity Generating Board will be invited to give the same pledge that the CEGB has given today.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the EC directive to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I think that my hon. Friend will tell us that Britain has led the field in its rigorous constraints on the handling of asbestos. The Government have done, and are doing, all that they should for the problem's European dimension. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the ratepayers of boroughs, districts and county councils will not have to pay for the future movement of asbestos or for demolition contracts including the movement of asbestos. It is simply not their job to meet such costs. In Fulham, those costs will amount, over a year, to a penny rate.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us good news tonight about the impact of the problem on future demolition contracts. I also hope that he will be able to say something about the regulations that he is about to introduce, which will cover many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Tooting and me. However, he may not be able to tell the people of Fulham that much can be done for them. They were the guinea pigs, and have had to pay the bill. Nevertheless, we have put things right as quickly as any democratic Administration can hope to do, and we respect the speed with which the Minister has acted.
In conclusion, I make this plea: will my hon. Friend give some thought to the cost and worry that my constituents have been put to, and search his heart—if not his pocket — for ways in which they can be recompensed for costs that others will not have had to bear?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House, the country and the citizens of West Ham and Fulham will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for raising this debate. Perhaps I should add at this juncture that in 1974 West Ham met Fulham in the cup final. However, the citizens of those areas are not the only ones involved. Many people live near power stations that may become redundant, like the station at West Ham. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting has already mentioned Kingston as a case in point. However, we hope that following this debate such problems will not arise. Perhaps there will be a rethink about the demolition of power stations. Alternatively, the stations may be converted for a combined heat and power scheme or kept for standby purposes that the CEGB has not as yet designated.
This debate is a Hammersmith and Fulham occasion for at least three reasons. I am rather surprised that we have had to have it tonight, because the risks from asbestos were known. However, I shall come to that later. The problem is not unknown, and could not be unknown, to the CEGB. London docklands has long known of the risks of asbestos. The ratepayers of Hammersmith and Fulham—I should declare an interest as I am one of them—may be paying money, but the residents of West Ham have paid, over the years, with their lives.
I had the privilege of introducing a private Member's Bill which is now an Act and has bearing on the asbestos problem. Alas, the Government have not yet made the regulations under that Act. I look forward to them being made in the near future.
The risks from asbestos at a work place are well known and are covered by legislation. Risks in the environment at large, particularly from the demolition and transport of asbestos materials, are also well known. Warnings galore have been issued in the last few years. That is what makes me concerned about the fact that we have to have this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said, has experience of Fulham power station. His family's experience goes back a long way. Fulham power station was a municipal power station initiated by the borough. I do not believe that the CEGB has thrown away the plans because it was constructed in the middle 1930s. Estimates of the amount of asbestos involved must have been made.
I suspect that there is a difficulty in relation to cost. If the CEGB disposes of power stations to other owners, it is up to the new owners to dispose of the building if they have an eye on the site. The costs of asbestos removal and the careful monitoring that is necessary are placed automatically on the new owners. It is in the new owners' interests to minimise expenditure. That is how the conflict of interests arises and why statute and the activities of environmental health offices are crucial.
I hope that people with large asbestos installations that need to be demolished will take responsibility for ensuring that the demolition is carried out responsibly before they sell the site. That might get rid of the inherent conflict of interests.
The other matter that I cannot understand involves the conditions for demolition that one would suppose that the CEGB would put on a sale. What one learns about firms and their reputation, which is sometimes found to be incorrect, is horrifying. The Government have a responsibility to find out exactly whose responsibility it is.
I deplore the fact that we have to have this debate. Thank goodness Parliament can deal with such matters. We have a legislative and executive longstop in our prized Adjournment debates. I hope that there will be no further need for Parliament to debate the matter. I hope that the Minister will examine why we had to have the debate. It should not have been necessary. Enraged citizens always have doubts about official bodies which make such a debate necessary. Let us learn our lessons, and let there be no need for future debates about asbestos. Let us hope that the Government's action is in tune with public opinion and let us ensure that such complaints do not occur again.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I should like to begin by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in the sense that this is an occasion on which we can do something which we all too rarely do, although we often could, which is to point to the particular advantage of the parliamentary system of government. There is no doubt that the actions we have seen over the past few weeks owe their genesis to the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) and the elected council. We have a system which allows people to put their problems and worries to their elected members


so that activities can be monitored and those responsible brought to account. That is one of our prized possessions and the reason why all of us are here. Even though there may not be many of us here this evening, we represent what is perhaps the most important activity in which this Chamber engages, which is to ensure that the fears, concerns and genuine worries of individual constituents are debated in Parliament. In that sense we are almost unique.
It is true that in dealing with asbestos all of us who seek to approach the matter with care and responsibility are faced with a real dilemma. We are right to say how serious a risk the substance presents and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his prescience and on his luck in securing this debate this evening.
The hon. Gentleman rightfully made play of the nature of the substance with which we are dealing. That is one way of considering the problem — to underline, to remind and to refuse to ignore the damage to health that can be caused by we know not how little of the substance. There lies the real problem. It is not a substance for which one can set a level below which there is no risk but a substance about which we do not know the lowest level of risk. We must therefore assume that a single fibre could do real damage which may not be seen for 20 years or more.
The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise the danger of the substance, but I am sure that he will agree with me that the other side of the dilemma is that we do not wish to raise fears where fears ought not to be raised—not in order to hide anything but merely not to raise concern where concern is unnecessary. That is the dilemma. We must ensure that people realise how dangerous the substance is and how careful must be their handling of it, but we must not make people frightened to breathe the air in London in case their health is damaged. I hope that nothing I say this evening leads people to believe that I am scaremongering on the one hand or complacent on the other. It is easy to appear to be both at different times.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South said, for many years asbestos has been known to be dangerous. For many years before that it was not known to be dangerous. The seriousness of the danger has grown not in reality but in one's understanding of it. There were times when it was known that asbestos was likely to be dangerous, but the full spread of the danger and, indeed, the different dangers of various types of asbestos have become known only recently.
In this country, as in many others, there are considerable quantities of asbestos. It has been used widely in a whole range of products. It was thought a most useful product to use for everything from roofing to the pads on ironing boards. It was all-pervasive—mined, brought into this country and used very widely indeed. We are, therefore, discussing one important aspect—a great quantity, but still one aspect—of a problem which will be with us for many years to come.
The problem with asbestos is that there is a great deal of it, that it is extremely dangerous and that much of it is not known about. In the past, people were not careful enough—I am not making a particular statement about any particular people—to look over their plans, not only for power stations but wherever asbestos was to be used. Indeed, many plans were not careful to delineate what material was used and where the material was, and various

materials were used as part of passing changes that were made. Some asbestos was exposed when what were thought of as minor alterations were made.
Therefore, we cannot estimate either the amount or the position of the material. Where the stuff is and how much there is of it presents a great problem. We cannot consider asbestos in power stations and the responsibility of the CEGB in isolation. We must look at it as part of a major problem which will be with us and, I am afraid, with our children.
As for the CEGB, I shall not dissent much from the remarks of the hon. Member for Tooting, although he was rather niggardly on one point. I shall not go into the question of who was responsible for what. The announcement I was able to make today in my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, as a result of our meeting last Monday and our previous discussions on this issue, came from a willing decision to change the policy on the part of the CEGB. I pay direct personal tribute to the board of the CEGB and to Sir Walter Marshall, for it has been their decision; it was something they wanted to do and they took the decision.
If every time somebody changes his view about how something should be done and we immediately say, "That proves you should have done it that way before", many people will not change their view for fear of being accused of accusing themselves. We should give credit to the CEGB for saying, "We have been told by the citizens of Fulham and people throughout the country that they would feel more assured if we had full responsibility to control the removal of asbestos from power stations before selling them". In that sense it is a compliment to the CEGB, for it is felt that it has sufficient responsibility, resources and expertise to be better at controlling the stripping of asbestos than most other bodies might be.
We in this House should accept that there are two aspects to health and safety. There is the reality of protecting people's health and ensuring their safety. There is the second, and no less important, need to ensure that they believe that their health and safety are protected. A person can be perfectly well protected but fear that he is in danger. If that is so, his emotional and mental stale will be badly affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham is right to say that our duty does not end with ensuring that people are not at risk, for we must ensure that they know that they are not at risk. One of my hon. Friend's complaints—it is one that I take seriously—is that the people of Fulham felt that they were at risk even in circumstances in which the best scientific information showed that they were not. It is the responsibility of us all to protect the public from that fear.
It has been said by my hon. Friend, his council, protestors and many others that the CEGB would be more likely to ensure that these matters were handled properly and that they would prefer it to control them. That is what Sir Walter Marshall has agreed to do. I have discussed these matters with them and I know that the Department of Energy, which is more directly responsible for the relationship, has also done so. I was pleased to receive confirmation from my noble Friend that this is what the CEGB intends to do. I understand that it will be making a formal announcement tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Tooting asked how the CEGB would control the operation in future. It will be for the Board to decide, as it would be if it were removing asbestos from a power station that it intended to hold on


standby, to convert or to do as it is expecting to do with a power station that is close to my constituency, the Cliff Quay power station at Ipswich.
Generally the CEGB uses a contractor that is expert in the removal of asbestos. Excellent though the CEGB may be, it is not primarily concerned with the removal of asbestos and therefore it is not unreasonable for it to use a contractor whose main job it is. The board has a list of approved contractors and I know that it exercises considerable care to ensure that it maintains a list of reliable contractors. It has the opportunity to ensure that the contractors do the job properly. There is also the monitoring that is carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, which I understand is preparing improved regulations. The executive's position is most important and it has been accepted by both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Tooting has said that in this debate we shall not enter into a party political discussion. I am pleased about that, for health and safety, as a result of an accident in the past, is not a party political matter. It is the one reason why I can be sanguine about the result of the 1974 general election. In 1974 the then Conservative Government had prepared legislation to bring into being the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive as a result of the Robens committee report. The then Conservative Government lost the election and the succeeding Labour Government introduced the present health and safety structure. It can be said that the present structure was brought into being with real all-party support and not merely that which is sometimes mouthed.
Although I understand the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, I believe that the Health and Safety Executive, especially in those installations for which it has prime responsibility and where the local authority does not, should take control. I am alive to the worries of the local people, and I do not want to underestimate them. We must proceed on the best available scientific information. I am assured by the Health and Safety Executive that it will do all the monitoring necessary to protect the health of those who do this work and the environment.
Neither my hon. Friend nor I am in a position to make such a judgment. That is why we have a Health and Safety Executive and why that body is at arm's length from the Government. It is not a body to which I can say, "Monitor 18 times around that installation" because I think that it would be a good idea for political or non-political reasons. Both sides of the House were correct to make it clear that the Health and Safety Executive should be a free-standing, independent body. I must rely on the Health and Safety Executive's advice that its monitoring is fully adequate to protect the public and those who demolish power stations.

Mr. Martin Stevens: During my remarks I conceded the point to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred. I should like the relationship between the local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive on these matters to be the same as that between the constitutional Monarchy and the elected Government. The local authority should have the right to be informed, and, if not the right to advise, the right to warn.

Mr. Gummer: It is often true in these matters that we believe that what we have experienced is the general rule.

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that generally it is the custom, although not the legal requirement, for the Health and Safety Executive to discuss a matter of this importance with the district council, borough council, or whatever authority is responsible. There is some evidence that on this occasion the consultations were neither early enough nor sufficient. I have asked the Health and Safety Executive—I can but ask because Parliament has given me no greater powers—to pay particular attention to my hon. Friend's worries. I assured the leader of his council about that.
We must not have too many people in charge. I want responsibility to be returned to the owners of the building and the people who are doing the demolition. Our health and safety arrangements are based on the principle that the employer is responsible for his workers' health and safety. It does not matter how stupid someone may be—if the employer has not dealt properly with a problem he is responsible. That has always been our view and it is one which I wholly support.
The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for ensuring that the law is obeyed and that the regulations are met. I believe that the hon. Member for Tooting would agree that it also has an important advisory responsibility. As he said, many different circumstances must be faced—not just different power stations but differences within power stations, which means that the advice of experts is necessary. I pay tribute to the executive because it leads the world in such work. Some problems will arise when we look at future legislation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will not accuse me of straying on to a problem that he and I have debated before if I say a few words about the European Community, because I think this is an example of where the European Community is seen at its best. We have sought to ensure that the regulations about the removal and transport of asbestos will apply throughout the Community. That is most important because we are talking about matters involving great expense. The hon. Member for Tooting mentioned them and I think that he was right to do so.
There is always the danger that one country will feel that it can have lower health and safety regulations to ensure that the costs of production and demolition in one country are lower than in another. Therefore, side by side with improving and extending the regulations in this country, the Government have sought to create a regimen in Europe that will ensure that the regulations will apply throughout the Community. We have not completely succeeded. There are one or two areas in which we want to go further than we have been able to convince our European partners to go. We intend to go further.
We shall not be restricted to the terms of the directive. Our view is that if we want better standards and are prepared to pay for them, we should have them. The Government have been clear about that. We have ensured that the European Community has been able to produce directives which will mean that the handling and demolition of asbestos within the European Community will be carried out under rules and regulations which are probably the best in the world. The British have led the way, and the Health and Safety Executive and the commission have been the means whereby we have been able to do that. I wish we could have done it quicker and


easier, but, as the hon. Member for Tooting admits, the problems are so great that it has been difficult to get the regulations right.
We strengthened and tightened the measurement regulations at the beginning of the year and improved the regulations as we learnt more about asbestos. One of the difficulties has been in counting and testing the fibres. There is some evidence that people have not been able to distinguish between asbestos and plaster fibres, which could be dangerous. We have talked about white dust. I do not know what it is but I assure the hon. Member for Tooting that I shall look into it. Demolition causes a great deal of dust; some may be asbestos and some may not. It is important to know what the fibres are so as to reassure the public. The Health and Safety Executive has produced the basis for the world standard. It was a scientific matter which gave us considerable difficulty. Through the Health and Safety Executive we paid for some major research which has formed the basis for the European and Canadian measurements system. We have led the world in that.
Although we highlight our constituents' worries, we should at the same time tell them how much has been done and honour this country's system which makes it possible.
The hon. Member for Tooting asked who will do the monitoring. It will be the Health and Safety Executive. Local authorities will still be free to monitor the environment if they wish. That is right because they may have special reasons for wanting to do so. It is not for me to say whether the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has made the right decision about wanting so much monitoring over so long a period by so many people. That is a matter for it. Although I shall search my heart, my conscience and my pocket, I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham that I can find any money to cover it. However, I believe that that is right. If the borough council makes that decision, it will have to do the monitoring. All I can say is that it is the job of the Health and Safety Executive to do all the monitoring or to see that the necessary monitoring is done—it may be done by someone else. I take seriously the criticism that the monitoring that should have been done has not been done, but I do not believe that it can be sustained.
I was asked about site security. The responsibility for that is clear. Under the health and safety Acts and the legislation under which we work there is clearly a responsibility on us to ensure that people do not endanger themselves by breaking into sites where there is dangerous material. The hon. Gentleman may point to a reported occasion when the site was not secure. That was wrong. There are the means and the powers under the Acts to ensure that, if there is proof, a prosecution can be made. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. One usually finds in such a situation that there has not been the best security. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the legal backing to insist upon proper site security is there and that the Health and Safety Executive is determined to see that it is not breached. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific examples, I shall see that they are looked into.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the disposal of waste. I do not want to duck that problem, but disposal is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment. However, I understand that the waste disposal sites are licensed under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 by the waste disposal authorities. They take particular account of the material that we are talking about. We are also taking special care about the

bagging of the asbestos. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham mentioned the changes in Fulham because of the problem. As he knows, there is double bagging to ensure that the bag is not contaminated by the asbestos. That process is monitored. I believe that I am right in saying that there is no sign from the monitoring that there has been any escape of asbestos.

Mr. Martin Stevens: It may be helpful to my hon. Friend in considering the Fulham case if I tell him that I understand that double bagging did not take place. The new owners of the power station regarded one bag as sufficient. This is simply to add to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the case.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to know that. All that I know is that it is in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive to insist on double bagging or any other bagging. It is for it to decide if it feels that the provision that is made is not sufficient. There are changes. Some site conditions require a different approach. My hon. Friend mentioned the breaking of the polythene covers round the site. Monitoring is not the most important thing. The most important thing is the integrity of the site. We must ensure that the dust does not come out anywhere. The inspection of the integrity of the site is important. My hon. Friend must accept that there has been a change. The polythene covering appeared to be broken, so the next lot of covering, which is being put up at the moment, was made of a different material. We hope that that will overcome that problem, which led not to danger but to the putting up of the prohibition notice while a way was found round the problem. There is no doubt that the Health and Safety Executive will have to find different answers, because there will be different problems on different sites.
There are between 400 and 500 active asbestos disposal sites in the United Kingdom. A code of practice was published by the Department of the Environment in 1979. It will be affected by the change in our attitudes to asbestos. I should like to tell the House what we intend to do.
I hope very much that in the autumn I shall be able to lay the new regulations on asbestos which by then will have come from the Health and Safety Executive to the Health and Safety Commission in their final form. They are based on very wide consultation. The new regulations will be tougher than those which obtain elsewhere, although we have managed to get most of them accepted throughout Europe. Curiously enough, the directives made this slightly more difficult. To make the regulations acceptable throughout Europe, we may have to change slightly some of the measures that we intend to take—not to make them less effective, but simply to change their form.
In the future, people licensed to deal with asbestos stripping will have to be registered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is important. The people involved will therefore have to be of good character and decent background. The hon. Gentleman will accept that occasionally people will have made mistakes and left undone things that they ought to have done. This may have become publicly known and they may even have been prosecuted. It would therefore be wrong for me to guarantee that no one who has done something that he ought not to have done will ever be involved again. Nevertheless, people involved in this work will have to be


registered and the Health and Safety Executive will clearly be anxious to ensure that they are suitable because in the act of registration the Health and Safety Executive takes on additional responsibility by stating that the person is suitable for the job.
The regulations will also extend the rules about how such work is done and the protection for those who do it, not because the present regulations are unsatisfactory in the sense of being too loose but because we wish to take into account the better ways of checking now available which were not available when the regulations were laid two or three years ago.
Today's debate has been an ideal opportunity for us to ventilate—perhaps "discuss" is a better word—at some length a matter of great importance. As a nation, health and safety are very high on our list of priorities. People talk about Government cuts, but I assure the House that the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive have been increased in real terms every year since 1979 when the Government took office. We have taken those steps because we believe in the importance of health and safety.
We have also encouraged the Health and Safety Executive in the use of modern techniques. The new Shield computer arrangements have meant that it has been able to concentrate considerable resources on those areas in which its help is most vital. Asbestos is clearly one such area and we shall ensure that it continues to take up a large proportion of the Health and Safety Executive's means.
When one considers the problems of asbestos in a general context, the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South should ring in our ears. He expressed the hope that we should not have to debate this again. He may express that hope, but I am sure that he is wrong. First, in purely practical terms, we are bound to return to the subject as new problems, dangers and fears arise. Secondly, I believe that we should also return to it in real terms. The only way to ensure that the health and safety of our nation are protected and that people do not become lax and think that the regulations may be set aside in the interests of short cuts and quicker profits is to ensure that these matters are constantly ventilated in the House. It would be wrong of me ever to criticise my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I sometimes feel that matters which are not the subject of party political division are not debated as often as they should be. Private Members' time is very limited. The raising of worries and fears on occasions such as this is thus very valuable.
In conclusion, may I say that if I have omitted to cover any of the points raised I hope to deal with them in correspondence because they are all important. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham have good reason to believe that they are well represented. He put his case well. I am glad that we can at least tell the CEGB that its decision under the wise guidance of Sir Walter Marshall will mean that many of the worries, although many of them may be unfounded, will not continue to disturb communities when power stations are sold.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Community Programme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

10 pm

Mr. Jim Lester: I am glad to be able to raise a subject that is of great importance to many people. The House can deal with such issues in Adjournment debates. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not feel that he has drawn a short straw as he has been required to reply to two Adjournment debates. Indeed, I hope that he will feel that he has a double barrel, as what he said about asbestos will, I am sure, be welcomed by many people. I hope that he will be able to make equally constructive comments about the community programme and long-term unemployment.
One of the problems of the House, which is highlighted by the difficulty of debating such subjects as long-term unemployment, is that so many Departments are involved that it is impossible to fit all the relevant Ministers on the Front Bench. The subject should be debated in the round and we must find ways in which to do so. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my suggestions about what the Department of Employment's main programme for long-term unemployment should be.
I followed the development of STEP, which provided a maximum of about 12,000 places. I also played a part in developing the community enterprise programme, which provided about 33,000 places. It will be working until the end of September. I welcome the introduction of the new community programme, which has a ceiling of about 150,000 places. It appears, however, that the problem is growing faster than are the numbers of people using the community programme. We should consider the number of people who qualify for the programme. There are 1·143 million who have been unemployed for more than one year, 532,000 who have been unemployed for more than two years, 301,000 under-25s who have been unemployed for more than one year, and 608,000 under-25s who have been unemployed for more than six months.
When one compares those stark figures with the take-up of 52,000, one realises that we have a long way to go. I am not criticising the Manpower Services Commission or the Department of Employment for that, as I know that they are doing everything they can to promote the scheme.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been fortunate enough to travel around the country examining highly commendable schemes. Their work is extremely valuable to the community.
We should closely examine the dividing line between what is classed as a community programme, in that it is work done for the community, and a programme that might have a hidden element of so-called profit. I remember the great frustration in Lancashire when I was looking at canal clearance schemes. They provided an attractive walkway along the canal, but by the side of the canal there was a derelict mill which the same labour force could have converted into small manufacturing units. That would have contributed far more to job creation in that community.
Many schemes have moved in that direction, but I hope that during the summer recess we can review the schemes that have been undertaken in terms of their job value to the community. One does not underestimate the good works being carried out. I visited a scheme where a United


Reform church was being converted to a Greek Orthodox church, which is very valuable for the Greek Orthodox community. However, priority must be given to schemes that produce jobs. Relevant schemes will attract more people.
An important element in overseas schemes is marketing graduates. The community programme is valuable not just because it helps important community projects but because the people on the scheme can achieve a great deal. The person on the scheme receives a marginally higher income. I do not believe that the present level of unemployment benefit encourages people not to work. I have spoken to many people on the schemes, and one of the first things that they have said to me is that they welcome the additional income.
The schemes represent something useful to do instead of the soul-destroying drift as time goes on and one has been unemployed for six months or a year. Individuals differ as to whether they see the scheme as marginally important or something much more profound. When I visited a scheme in my area recently, a man aged 57, who had despaired of working again because he suffered a heart attack three years ago, told me:
The scheme has saved my life. Without it I would he lost. People do not know what it's like to be rejected. Many like me are available for light work—but nobody will employ you.
That man is building special wooden equipment for disabled children.
For some people on the schemes it is the first time that they have been motivated to progress from unskilled labour to the desire to train. The schemes often provide training in simple skills, although at an uncommercial rate. People can learn bricklaying or carpentry, and the fact that they have achieved something means that they often wish to have more training. Another great advantage of the scheme is that it gets people over the first hurdle of the search for a job. One has a much better chance of getting a job with a recommendation from the people running the scheme than if one goes to a job interview with the tag of being unemployed for more than a year. However, in terms of the change in the pattern of employment from unskilled to skilled jobs, many of the schemes have not yet reached first base.
The Department must realise that the relevance of the project is important. We can no longer consider the community programme as a temporary measure to deal with something that will go away. Most of us recognise that long-term unemployment is already so high that many schemes will become permanent. We must examine the areas in which the schemes have operated, and perhaps I could give my hon. Friend some examples of areas where we could promote them rather more energetically. In many parts of the country the community programme undertakes insulation work, but many people cannot meet their fuel bills because their homes are not properly insulated and they are unable to budget. More co-ordination could result in a valuable addition to the work that the community programme is now undertaking.
Many community projects involve gardening and the the teaching of gardening skills. That is valuable because it enables many people to do worthwhile work. The gardens are those of the elderly and the disabled, but access to information is often tenuous, possibly through the local vicar or someone who knows Mrs. So-and-so. Would it not be possible to link such community projects directly with certain local authorities that can no longer

undertake such work because of their financial problems but which have intimate knowledge of the disabled and those who are unable to look after their gardens?
An extra pair of hands is often valuable in special case work, such as that in centres for the mentally handicapped, day care centres and so on.
These suggestions are not anti-NALGO or against unions that believe that people should not be used as cheap labour or to replace full-time jobs. An extra pair of hands is valuable in addition to agreed staffing levels, and the three examples that I have cited could perhaps be developed more than they seem to have been.
It is essential that the agencies currently undertaking such programmes become established and settled so that they become known within the community as enterprising, offering genuine prospects and doing valuable work.
These community programmes must become involved in training. I know that training is within their remit, although they do not seem to have developed it to any great extent. I have visited schemes such as the Family First Trust in Nottingham, 20 per cent. of whose staff move into full-time work or education. I remember visiting a community programme in Wolverhampton called Cruse, in which young Rastafarians helped to build their own community church. They had previously wheeled barrows and shunted bricks around, but they wanted to become more skilled. There is, however, no link between the community programmes and practical training.
This is a much wider question than can be covered in a few minutes, but we must look at the skill centres and the practical ways in which we undertake training. In terms of the community programme, we must sift the agencies that can undertake the first level of training. If the agency is of any size or consequence, it must have a placement man to follow the careers of the people on the programme, to recommend them to an employer or for training, and to pester, push and place. Agencies that achieve the best results should be supported financially.
For that to happen, we must look at the position of key staff, which brings me back to the point that many of these agencies must become permanent. Under the existing rules, the community programme guarantees the post of the manager, but other key members of staff serve only up to three years. If we are to develop a professional team which is known to the community and can achieve the results about which I have been talking, it is important to have a practical solution to put all key staff on an open-ended contract subject to annual review in the same way as we developed the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme.
If we are to increase the level of training and increase the skill input through agencies, we must also look at the ratio of key staff. At the moment, it is 10:1, but if we move into high levels of training we should have ratios of 8:1. It is not my desire, as I am sure it is not the Government's desire, to build up any new body to duplicate work already being done. However, it is essential that if the community programmes and these agencies are to deliver, we should have a flexible approach. All of us recognise that budgetary control must be effective, but it must not be a paper-pushing exercise.
I know that the Minister feels as I do, that, in the 18 to 24 age group, we are dealing with a generation who were born in the sixties at a bullish time, who looked to the future and saw no prospect of things getting worse. They went to primary schools, often in large classes with


teachers who came through teacher training college in a rush, and moved into secondary education when reorganisation was all the mode and many new schools were being developed on the basis of untried methods. They left school at a time when maximum numbers were coming on to the job market but a decline in the number of jobs available. Many have now been through the youth opportunities programme for a year and now move into the range of the community programme.
About 75,000 of those under 25 have now been unemployed for two to three years and 23,000 have been unemployed for three to four years. We need action to break the mould if we are to prevent this inevitable group, having gone through what I described, from going on to permanent unemployment. All that I have said so far is to do that and to improve the current vehicle so that it can do so.
Unless the rules have changed, the Treasury is not holding back on this. Two Budgets ago, it said that it would finance 150,000 places in the scheme and when that was full, it would look at more. It is a challenge for us to see that this scheme is filled, as it is the only way in which we can help these critical groups of 18 to 24-year-olds and 55 years and older back into the mainstream of life.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for raising this subject. It was of great advantage that this evening we had the time to cover it, for, very often it is such subjects that are lost in the more contentious issues upon which we normally spend our debating hours. Therefore, it has been a pleasure to have had two Adjournment debates in which we can discuss matters that are important. Although, as far as I can see, there are no Opposition Members present, we are at least at one in seeking to find a solution to a generally accepted problem. My hon. Friend is known for his concern about this matter and I, like others, read with interest his recent article in The Guardian, which covered some of the ground that he has been able to cover this evening.
The mere repeating of comments about our concern at the high level of unemployment sometimes seems unnecessary, but none of us should discuss the matter without reminding ourselves of the serious effect of unemployment upon people, particularly those who suffer from sustained unemployment. My hon. Friend was right when he said that many people in this country are unemployed for long periods and that some of those people fear that they will never find employment, for the reasons that he described. It is because we as a Government are deeply concerned about high unemployment and its effects on individuals that we have given clear priority in our proposals to young people and the long-term unemployed, and that is why we are spending nearly £2,000 million on a wide range of special employment and training measures. That figure will increase to over £2 billion next year. At the end of May, those measures covered more than 561,000 people. They had a direct effect on the opportunities provided for people who otherwise might be unemployed.
My hon. Friend spoke in particular of the community programme. It is a programme in which I have a special

interest. He seemed anxious to make certain that I was interested in what he said by telling me of the conversion of a United Reform church into a Greek Orthodox church. For an Anglo-Catholic, it is good to see that the church is moving in what, in general terms, I might call the right direction. I had not realised the special use to which the community programme had been put. We owe a great deal to the many different bodies that have taken an active part in the community programme. It is true that in many cases local authorities have played an active and leading role, but the part played by voluntary bodies and individuals is growing, and it can be seen in a range of projects.
I was interested to hear the other day that the Devon county council has an environmental improvement programme near Newton Abbot. It has only 20 places for unemployed people, but when it is finished, with its walks, picnic places and improvement of a woodland area into a country park, there will be a real sense of creation. It is not only a matter of doing something but of achieving and creating something. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we can re-establish in people skills which they may have had but which have laid dormant, and a feeling that they can do something useful in a community which is clearly oriented to the status of being at work.
My hon. Friend and I could probably talk for a long time about whether that attitude to work, and the status that goes with it, is a proper one or whether it should be looked at differently. I myself am more attracted to the Benedictine concept of work, although that is not widely known or supported today. Many people need to feel that they matter, that they are making a contribution. It is not just the doing, but the achieving. My hon. Friend was right to talk about the relevance of a project.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen what Mobil has done in co-operation with the Southend borough council. They have jointly sponsored a project based on the nature reserve at Leigh marshes, on the Essex coast. More than 100 unemployed people are rebuilding the sea wall of that nature reserve. Skills that have lain dormant, or skills that people have never had, have been utilised, and when the project is complete, it will be a major monument to the effort of those people. Indeed, I listened with interest the other day to a programme in which a young man explained that what he thought worthwhile in the community programme was looking at the line of stone-walling that he had helped to build. That was important for him—not the money.
I hope that anyone who reads this debate will reflect that there is room, too, for small projects. I am anxious that the community programme should not be restricted to those who one might expect to do it. I know that my hon. Friend feels the same because he has said so in the past.
I learnt the other day of a project in Dewsbury at the St. Paulinus parish church where a small number of people are involved in turning an overgrown area into a children's play area and a landscaped garden with seating for the elderly. Dewsbury is the sort of place where such a contribution is permanent for the community. That programme involved only six or seven people, but it was well worth doing by the church group. I pay considerable tribute to the many people involved. I want to encourage more such programmes, particularly among smaller bodies and groups. As a rural Member of Parliament, I hope that there will be more in areas which are perhaps less used to dealing with this sort of matter but where there are many unemployed in the categories that have been mentioned.
This year, the programme that my hon. Friend is seeking to praise and to improve will cost over £380 million. That will provide not just joins but a permanent advantage to the communities in which those jobs are. I know that many hon. Members have taken a real part in encouraging those. The work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), a former Minister of State in the Department of Employment, in the promotion of that was important and valuable.
My hon. Friend mentioned linking the community programme with further training not only in his speech but also in his article which we found most helpful. The real problem, which I know that he recognises, is that the community programme is meant to be a temporary employment programme. That is its purpose and that is how it is seen. Therefore, it can never be that the training element is a major part of it. However, there is considerable scope for project sponsors to provide relevant training. One of the exciting things about the programme as it develops is that there is considerable evidence that the majority of sponsors—not just a few—are providing that training.
As my hon. Friend knows, the programme is flexible in its approach to training. Sponsors can use up to £10 of the wage costs per week per person or any amount of the £440 capital overheads grant to finance training which is directly related to the job in hand and which will improve the participants' employment prospects. That is an important part of the scheme and I shall certainly draw the

attention of those who are concerned with the direction of the programme to the points that my hon. Friend has made as to how that might be improved.
I know that my hon. Friend realises that there is more work to be done. This is a newish programme and we shall learn all the time. Nothing that we have laid down so far is immutable and it would be wrong to see it as such. At present there are signs that more training is likely under this programme than under the previous community enterprise programme. That is partly the result of pressure from people such as my hon. Friend.
At the end of June almost 106,000 places had been approved on the programme, and of those 64,000 were already occupied. That is most encouraging. My hon. Friend's point about the number of people who become eligible owing to the latest figures is important. One or two attacks have been made on the programme, but they have increasingly been found to be without foundation. I am pleased to see that there is a growing recognition that the community programme is of great worth. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. I am sure that we can improve the programme and I shall look carefully at his specific points. I hope that he will agree with me that it is a welcome addition to the Government's raft of help to those who are unemployed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.